'According to the Citizens Confefrence on State ...
LEGISLATIVE REFORM IN NORTH CAROLINA, CASE STUDY 1971-2004 OF ACTIONS ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE SOMETIME GOVERNMENTS: A CRITICAL STUDY OF THE 50 AMERICAN LEGISLATURES
Gerry F. Cohen
A thesis submitted to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Political Science
Chapel Hill
2004
Approved by:
_________________________
Advisor: Thad Beyle
_________________________
Reader: Lars Schoultz
_________________________
Reader: Judith Wegner
ABSTRACT
GERRY COHEN: Legislative Reform in North Carolina, Case Study 1971-2004 of Actions on the Recommendations in The Sometime Governments: A Critical Study of the 50 American Legislatures
(Under the direction of Thad Beyle)
In 1971, the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures released The Sometime Governments and an accompanying technical publication that were largely viewed as a scathing attack on the 50 state legislatures. The books made specific recommendations on reform and modernization of each state's legislative body. In North Carolina, the 23 recommendations were met with general disdain by legislative leaders, but general support from newspapers and academics. Over the next three decades, 11 of the recommendations were implemented, 10 partially implemented, and two not implemented. The two not implemented were technical in nature, those partially implemented in some cases impinged on the flexibility of legislative leadership. Those totally implemented dealt primarily with staffing, modernization, and the ability of the public to be informed about legislative action. The Sometime Governments has been viewed as the catalyst for many of these actions. This thesis tracks the implementation of the recommendations in North Carolina.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to Allard K. Lowenstein, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Class of 1949, who motivated me during his congressional campaign in 1968 to follow legislative politics, and during his annual visits to Chapel Hill 1969-1979 made sure my interest in legislatures and politics did not wane. As am I, Al was a graduate student at Chapel Hill well after completing his undergraduate work. I also acknowledge Professor Thad Beyle of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who prodded me to start and then finish this project and thoroughly reviewed each Chapter as drafts were finished.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES vii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER II PRESS RESPONSE, NORTH CAROLINA AND NATIONAL 7
CHAPTER III OTHER REFORMERS AT WORK FOR THE STATES 11
CHAPTER IV THE NORTH CAROLINA RECOMMENDATIONS FOLLOWED BY IMPLEMENTATION 1971-2004 18
INTRODUCTION TO THE CCSL RECOMMENDATIONS 18
GENERAL COMMENTS BY CCSL 18
RECOMMENDATION 1. REMOVE CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON SESSION AND INTERIM TIME. 22
RECOMMENDATION 2. REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COMMITTEES 25
RECOMMENDATION 3. REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS 28
RECOMMENDATION 4. COMMITTEE JURISDICTION 32
RECOMMENDATION 5. NOTICE OF MEETINGS 32
RECOMMENDATION 6. OPEN COMMITTEES. 33
RECOMMENDATION 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 35
RECOMMENDATION 8. RECORD AND PUBLISH PROCEEDINGS OF COMMITTEES. 36
RECOMMENDATION 9. PUBLISH COMMITTEE ROLL CALLS 37
RECOMMENDATION 10. INTERIM COMMITTEES. 38
RECOMMENDATION 11. STRENGTHEN STAFF SUPPORT 42
RECOMMENDATION 12. STRENGTHEN STAFF SUPPORT - LEADERS 48
RECOMMENDATION 13. STRENGTHEN STAFF (RANK-AND-FILE MEMBERS) 50
RECOMMENDATION 14. REQUIRE ROLL CALL ON PASSAGE OF BILLS 51
RECOMMENDATION 15. ELECTRIC ROLL CALL RECORDER 52
RECOMMENDATION 16. STATEMENT OF INTENT BY AUTHOR OF A BILL. 54
RECOMMENDATION 17. BILL SUMMARY BY BILL-DRAFTING SERVICE 54
RECOMMENDATION 18. IMPROVE PRESS FACILITIES 55
RECOMMENDATION 19. JOINT RULES. 56
RECOMMENDATION 20. REPRINT AMENDED BILLS 61
RECOMMENDATION 21. PROVIDE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS 62
RECOMMENDATION 22. ETHICS 63
RECOMMENDATION 23. DISCONTINUE ROTATING LEADERSHIP. 65
CHAPTER V ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS 67
APPENDIX I. COMMITTEE JURISDICTION IN HOUSE AND SENATE RULES 73
APPENDIX II. MEETING NOTICE AS FOUND IN HOUSE AND SENATE RULES 75
APPENDIX III. OPEN MEETINGS IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE RULES AND GENERAL STATUTES 77
APPENDIX IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS 80
APPENDIX V. HOUSE AND SENATE RULES ON COMMITTEE MINUTES 81
APPENDIX VI. ROLL CALL VOTES IN COMMITTEE 82
APPENDIX VII. FISCAL NOTES 83
APPENDIX VIII. STATUTES AND HOUSE AND SENATE RULES ON ROLL CALL VOTES ON PASSAGE OF BILLS 85
APPENDIX IX. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING STUDY OF JOINT RULES 89
REFERENCES 90
LIST OF TABLES
1. Legislative /calendar days of short sessions 1974-2004 23
2. legislative /calendar days of long sessions 1971-2003 24
3. number of Standing Committees, 1971-2003 27
4. standing committee assignments per member 1971-2003 29
5. Legislative Research Commission (LRC) Budgets. 39
6. Budgets for LRC and Independent Legislative Studies 40
7. BUDGET OF FISCAL RESEARCH DIVISION 46
8. BUDGET OF RESEARCH DIVISION 46
9. BUDGET OF BILL DRAFTING DIVISION 47
10. LEADERSHIP STAFF POSITIONS 2004 49
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In August of 1971, The Sometime Governments (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b), the first comprehensive published study of individual American legislatures (New York Times 1971: 70), was released by the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures (CCSL), showing the state of those institutions at the close of the 1960s. The study was begun in 1969 and completed in 1970 (New York Times 1971: 70), spanning fourteen months and ranking the fifty state legislatures according to their decision-making capabilities (Herzberg and Rosenthal 1971: 184). The study itself was released on February 3, 1971 (New York Times 1971: 70). Change is endemic to political institutions, particularly to legislative bodies, and it stimulates continual inquiry by political scientists (Rosenthal 1996). I first read The Sometime Governments just after its release in the fall of 1971, during my first semester in graduate school, piquing my interest in the subject of legislative politics.[1] That study ranked North Carolina 47th among the 50 State Legislatures (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 49) and made 23 recommendation for legislative reform (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 272-276). The conference measured states against each other rather than against a standard (New York Times 1971: 70).
A bad legislature is pretty much like those found in most American states in the 1950s and '60s (Ehrenhalt 2004). Textbooks on State government have for years depicted legislatures as inept organizations (Stuart 1975). The Ford Foundation funded an influential crusade to improve the quality of state legislatures, including The Sometime Governments with its 1st to 50th ranking (Ehrenhalt 2004, Rosenthal 2004).
After the release of the initial recommendations in 1971, the CCSL noted in 1972 that "A few of the Citizens Conference recommendations have been put into effect, such as the reprinting of amended bills and the further use of interim committees. One of the North Carolina respondents said, however, that 'very few recommendations have been implemented and the prospects are dim for much improvement.'"[2] (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1972: 39).
Now, over 30 years have passed, and a review of those recommendations and their implementation shows that North Carolina legislators paid attention to the recommendations. In Chapter IV of this thesis, the North Carolina recommendations, repeated verbatim, are shown in italics, followed by a report on the implementation of those recommendations by the North Carolina General Assembly from 1971 to 2004. A list of the recommendations with a short summary appears later in this Chapter.
The preface to the Second Edition of The Sometime Governments notes:
"In 1965, the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures was formed for the specific purposes of finding out what was wrong with legislatures and what could be done about them. The Conference worked with legislatures, citizens groups, the news media and universities, studying legislative conditions, making recommendations, advising in their implementation and helping to inform the public on the issues of legislative capability.
Improvements in various phases of the legislative operation came about – sporadically – in numerous states and in varying degrees. What the movement needed and did not have was a yardstick – a way to measure what each of the 50 state legislatures had and what each lacked in terms of practical tools to do its job. Among the crucial questions were: What structural and operational forms and conditions are required to enable a legislature to do its work? How does each state legislature measure up to this standard?
In 1969, with a grant from the Ford Foundation for basic research on state legislatures, the Citizens Conference launched a study that was to provide such a yardstick. This book is one of the results of that landmark study.
Since its publication by Bantam Books in 1971, The Sometime Governments has been widely read, discussed, studied, referred to and commented on by laymen as well as by specialists. It has been adopted as a basic text or as supplementary reading in many college classrooms. It is a standard reference tool in many libraries and newsrooms" (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b).
A technical volume by the CCSL entitled State Legislatures: An Evaluation of Their Effectiveness (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a) contains additional technical information about the study and its methodology. The Sometime Governments was the popular volume, State Legislatures: An Evaluation of Their Effectiveness the technical version of the same study (Rosenthal 2004: 8). Both The Sometime Governments and the technical volume indicate that study data, organized for comparison and analysis, was recorded on computer tape at the Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California at Berkeley, but by 2004 no record at Berkeley could be found of this database.[3]
Then Common Cause chair John Gardner stated in 1971:
"The grave shortcomings of state legislatures as instruments of a responsive and honest government must be laid squarely at the door of the American citizen …Until we alter this situation, we will not bring about the necessary changes. And the first task in engaging the concern of the American public is the task of informing and educating. That is why it is so timely and valuable that the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures has carried through a major study of the 50 state legislatures and why it is a public service to give it wide distribution. This study breaks through long-standing but contrasting barriers of disinterest and timidity that have deterred political science scholars and public administrators alike from analyzing the capability and vitality of one of the key parts of American government. Hopefully, this effort will be followed by many others that improve upon it and go on to assess the relative content of the legislative product flowing each year from the state capitols. I would urge that students in each of the 50 states dig more deeply into the conditions in their own state legislature" (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: vii).
Jack Fleer noted in 1994: "Although there are no widely agreed-on standards for assessing the effectiveness of state legislatures, the criteria set forth by the report of the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures are useful. As indicated earlier, the report states that legislatures are to be representative, informed, independent, accountable, and functional. On most measures, the North Carolina legislature has made important progress since the early 1970s" (Fleer 1994: 89).
Ehrenhalt noted: "Three decades after the reform project completed its work, there is no question that state legislatures as an institution possess more resources, more information and a higher degree of independence that virtually any of them did in the bad-old pre-reform days" (Ehrenhalt 2004). Ehrenhalt surveyed Minnesota and Wisconsin, two states he indicated took The Sometime Governments seriously.
My own analysis of the 23 recommendations of the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 272-276) shows that in North Carolina 11 were fully implemented, nine partially implemented, one implemented in the House but not the Senate, and two not implemented, as follows (with the date of implementation in parentheses):
1. REMOVE CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON SESSION AND INTERIM TIME Implemented. (1974)
2. REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COMMITTEES. Partially implemented. (Senate 1995, House 1989 only)
3. REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS. Partially implemented. (Senate 1989 and 2003, House 2003)
4. COMMITTEE JURISDICTION. Partially implemented. (1971)
5. NOTICE OF MEETINGS. Implemented. (Senate 1969, House 1979)
6. OPEN COMMITTEES. Implemented. (1971)
7. COMMITTEE HEARINGS. Partially implemented. (House 1979, general language in both houses predates the study)
8. RECORD AND PUBLISH PROCEEDINGS OF COMMITTEES. Implemented. (Senate 1979, House 1985)
9. PUBLISH COMMITTEE ROLL CALLS. Implemented in House, Not implemented in Senate. (House 1977)
10. INTERIM COMMITTEES. Partially implemented. (1973)
11. STRENGTHEN STAFF SUPPORT. Implemented. (1971)
12. STRENGTHEN STAFF SUPPORT (LEADERS). Implemented. (1977)
13. STRENGTHEN STAFF (RANK-AND-FILE MEMBERS). Partially implemented. (1974)
14. REQUIRE ROLL CALL ON PASSAGE OF BILLS. Partially implemented. (Senate 1975, House 1977)
15. ELECTRIC ROLL CALL RECORDER. Implemented. (Senate 1975, House 1977)
16. STATEMENT OF INTENT BY AUTHOR OF A BILL. Not implemented.
17. BILL SUMMARY BY BILL- DRAFTING SERVICE. Not implemented
18. IMPROVE PRESS FACILITIES. Implemented. (1993)
19. JOINT RULES. Partially implemented. (1979)
20. REPRINT AMENDED BILLS. Implemented. (1971)
21. PROVIDE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. Implemented. (2003)
22. SPECIAL PROVISIONS. (Ethics) Partially implemented. (1975)
23. DISCONTINUE ROTATING LEADERSHIP. Implemented. (Senate 1977, House 1979)
The North Carolina Constitution states merely that "The legislative power of the State shall be vested in the General Assembly, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." (North Carolina Constitution, Article II, Section 1 1970) Other than setting out the membership of each house, the terms of office, some special requirements for passage of tax and bond bills and some minor limitations on local acts (North Carolina Constitution, Article II 1970) North Carolina has left it up to each legislature to determine how it will do business. An examination of the CCSL study and other contemporaneous criticism of the General Assembly found in Chapter III of this thesis and the legislative actions over 30 years on implementing or ignoring those recommendations will allow legislators, academicians and the public to understand how well North Carolina has progressed in exercising its legislative power.
CHAPTER II
PRESS RESPONSE, NORTH CAROLINA AND NATIONAL
The New York Times reported on the state-by-state rankings and recommendations the day after the February 3, 1971 release of the CCSL study, listing the top 10 and bottom 10 states. The Times noted that "The study found the State Governments to be in deep trouble, both as to their public credibility and as to their operations . . . The conference report noted that there had been a movement for reform in some states. The study was intended to provide information that would spur significant changes." The study was considered important because of federal proposals to grant $16 billion per year in federal revenue sharing to states assuming the money could be spent wisely (New York Times 1971: 70).
While the study was making national news, North Carolina newspapers also gave the study prominent coverage on February 4, 1971 as well, with state officials in various levels of denial (Childs 1971, Jablow 1971). The Raleigh based News & Observer gave the study front page treatment, the headline blaring "Assembly's Low Ranking Irks N.C. Legislators". (Childs 1971). The Charlotte Observer, the State's largest daily, headlined "U.S. Citizens Group rates N.C. Assembly a Poor 47th" (Jablow 1971). The News & Observer reported that the study's 47th ranking for North Carolina "…triggered shock and indignation in the State House … 'We have a lot of stargazers who've never served a day in the legislature or run for public office', said House Speaker Phil Godwin" (Childs 1971). Lieutenant Governor Pat Taylor, who presided over the State Senate, was even more blunt "I haven't seen [the report] But I rate whoever did it 47th in their ability to evaluate legislatures" (Childs 1971). After the initial quoted barrage, the News & Observer article later went on to emphasize that "Assembly leaders generally agreed the legislature does need much more staff and research capability of its own" (Childs 1971). At first there was little sentiment to adopt the CCSL recommendations, but many of them were later implemented (Coble 1987).
Rosenthal later recognized that "… a number of legislative leaders (some of whom served in states with lower rankings) pointed out publicly that the CCSL rankings made little sense … like evaluating a football team by the condition of its uniforms and locker rooms … rather than by its performance on the field" (Rosenthal 2004: 8). North Carolina Legislative Services Officer Clyde Ball questioned the findings right after their release, saying they may have been based on misleading criteria, noting that it appeared biased towards states with full time and highly-staffed legislative bodies (Jablow 1971). Rosenthal agreed with this analyis, noting that "[T]he states that ranked at the top … were those that devoted the most resources to the legislature … salaries, staff and facilities were relatively plentiful" (Rosenthal 2004: 8). Ball did note that the CCSL was "not an irresponsible organization or some screwball outfit" (Jablow 1971).
While some North Carolinians may blame the General Assembly for all the State's problems, looking back three decades, the General Assembly was held in even less respect then. Two newspaper stories at the time of release of The Sometime Governments showed the North Carolina press view. The Charlotte Observer noted:
"According to the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures, North Carolina's General Assembly ranks 47th in the 50 states. The legislatures of Alabama, Wyoming and Delaware were the only ones considered less effective than North Carolina's. Larry Margolis, executive director of the Citizens' Committee, said … there were a variety of reasons North Carolina ranked so low. It is apparent from the rankings that the two major considerations were legislative staff and salary, two categories where North Carolina ranked near the bottom. The two top states, California and New York, ranked high in staff and salary… Margolis recommended that the North Carolina legislature needed reform of its committee system, electronic voting, bill summaries, representatives from single-member districts and to allow the Speaker of the House to serve more than one term. All of these recommendations are now being considered by a legislative reform committee … [a]nd reform must come if the states are to cope with their major social and environmental problems…" (Tarleton 1971)
The News & Observer in Raleigh opined, "North Carolina needs several basic legislative reforms. The assembly's research staff, despite improvements in recent years, remain obviously inadequate. The amount and weight of legislative business demands annual sessions. Changing the committee system so that major panels could meet at regular intervals between session would be a significant prelude to such major reforms" (News & Observer 1971).
A year later, the New York Times noted that:
"The state legislature is the Lazarus of American governmental structures. Once vital and alive and a focus of activity, then dead, it rises now across the country to tackle a backlog of unmet public needs …the pendulum has begin a reverse swing … Changes in the last few years have seen state constitutional reform almost everywhere and the enactment of statutes that provide for better staffing of legislative committees, improved procedures for making laws, increased legislative pay and more frequent sessions... some of the reforms reflect the earnest efforts of the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures" (Hamilton 1972).
Ferrel Guillory in the News & Observer reviewed progress in 1993:
"The Citizens Conference ranked the North Carolina General Assembly 47th in effectiveness. To a degree the low ranking may have been unfair, but it stung. Since then, the state legislature has made huge strides in opening meetings, computerizing, recording votes electronically, assembling a professional staff and strengthening its own leadership. The North Carolina General Assembly has become what the Citizens Conference sought: a legislature with 20th century structures. But now the 21st century approaches, and the question arises as to whether this state's legislature will be ready for the tasks ahead. From conversations in recent days with lawmakers, staffers, lobbyists and veteran state-government watchers, I detect a pervasive worry about the General Assembly. Some of this reflects, to be sure, the weariness that sets in at the end of a long session, but it's difficult to discount the genuine concerns of experienced people who have a deep respect or even affection for the legislative branch of government. It should not surprise anyone that a two-decade-long process of change and reform would begin to fade. Even a strengthened legislature needs, from time to time, a reassessment and a fresh burst of energy. The time, therefore, seems ripe for a North Carolina version of a "citizens conference" on the state's legislature" (Guillory 1993).
Press coverage of the CCSL report and legislative reaction to it indicated both offense at the reactions from an out-of-state group as well as a realization from the press and legislative leaders that something had to be done. Academics and others had also been critical of the North Carolina General Assembly while understanding of the pressures it faced (see the next Chapter) and pressure from both press and scholars helped set the stage for action on the recommendations.
CHAPTER III
OTHER REFORMERS AT WORK FOR THE STATES
The state legislature is one of the anomalies of the American political system. It has few public supporters (Heard 1966: 37). Literature on state legislatures is full of authors exhorting legislatures to advance (Wissel 1976: 252). Textbooks on State government have for years depicted legislatures as inept organizations (Stuart 1975). In 1971, the North Carolina General Assembly, largely because of low pay for members and lack of staff was known as the most cheaply operated legislature on a per capita basis (Barnes 1993). The CCSL report showed that the North Carolina General Assembly in 1971 had an organization and procedures with origins in the 18th century (Stuart 1975).
Legislative action in response to the CCSL report was strong. Fundamental change in the way the legislature goes about its business began in 1971. One of the key events causing this reform movement was the CCSL study that had branded North Carolina's General Assembly the fourth worst in the country (Coble 1987).
Even before release of The Sometime Governments, (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b) reactions to North Carolina's lack of legislative modernity were common. In 1967, former North Carolina Governor Terry Sanford presaged the report at length, first quoting muckraker Frank Trippett:
"Finding fault with state government is nothing new. . . Anyone writing of the state as an instrument of government must write of the legislature. To indict the states is to indict the legislatures ... legislatures are inefficient and corrupt, … they procrastinate on public business while habitually kowtowing to private economic interests, … legislators get drunk and disorderly and consort with ladies procured by avaricious lobbyists, … they line their own pockets, scratch their own backs and roll their own logs-all the while stamping out progressive legislation in the name of protecting their constituents" (Sanford 1967: 39, Trippett 1967).
Sanford's work largely paralleled the CCSL effort. Sanford had received funding from the Ford Foundation for general work in improving the states, and from the Carnegie Foundation to assist in establishing a 50-state educational reform effort.[4] Sanford's response to the problem (quoted below) was more tempered than Trippett's:
"My experiences do not bear out these harsh observations. I suppose this kind of muckraking serves a purpose. It may stir to action those who have not had much concern for taking part in state government. But while these charges might have a good effect, they are simply not an accurate report. They are strong and the culprit is named. But does the total implication constitute a true bill? First, it assumes that the ills of one branch of state government, the legislature, even if the charges are true, visit upon the whole of state government an aura of negligence or neglect, if not evil. Second, it generalizes from the particular; drunken legislators indict all legislators; corruption in one means all are corrupt; one inefficient and backward legislature stands for forty-nine other similar legislatures…Nor is it a fact that legislative corruption is widespread. It is easy to repeat an old cliche', grasping at every individual infraction to reinforce its truth; but the ancient cliche' that legislators are more corrupt than other men doesn't apply to the vast majority of state legislators. I have known and met with legislators from almost every state. I have worked with many of them on committees. I have served in a state legislature. I can remember three or four who did the general reputation of the body no good, but also I can think of many more of similar ilk in the national Congress. This statement doesn't condemn either the Congress or the legislature. The overwhelming majority in both places are conscientious and diligent, and attempt to reflect what they believe best for their states and country. They are not corrupt as institutions, as groups, as legislatures. Only a handful are questionable … The governorships, the legislatures, the constitutions, the personnel systems, the tax structures-indeed, every aspect of state government including the atmosphere of its activity-must be revitalized if states are to assume a new posture of leadership.. . .The state legislatures are democracy's voice. The members frequently stand for election or re-election. They are seen and visited in their home communities at least on weekends during sessions, and daily in the months prior to the beginning of sessions. There cannot be many state legislators who have not been waited on by endless delegations either in support of or in opposition to some bill, seeking his assistance in getting a neighbor admitted to the state hospital, or soliciting his intervention with the governor on the matter of a bridge or a parole; who have not been telephoned by individuals, drunk or sober, at all hours of the night or early morning, written to by all manner of people, banded all assortments of brochures and briefs propounding some special project or program, and deluged with legislative bills and official documents. Most of them have little help in dealing with clerical matters, and even less help in studying the legislative matters. That they are frustrated is understandable" (Sanford 1967 40: 180-181).
Sanford concluded with an early academic mention to the CCSL:
"I contend that the legislatures of the states have the capacity to move into greater responsibility, and that they are in a position to play an important part in strengthening their executives, streamlining their governmental structures, reforming their constitutions, improving their personnel procedures, and providing the funds for adequate state services and aid to urban and other local governments. We have so much riding on state legislatures that they are going to have to rise to their challenges . . .And the citizens, counting heavily on the state legislatures, as they must, would do well to give them all the support they will need. They have left themselves short of the tools they must have, and they do need citizens' backing now. John Anderson, a former governor of Kansas, now director of the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures, has pointed out the issues of salaries, staff, research, and offices, for example, are not minor matters. Research done by the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures indicates that the cost of operating the United States Congress is more than twice that of operating all 50 legislatures combined. I am not suggesting that the state legislatures match for themselves the appropriations Congress spends on itself. The states can do better with less, but they cannot do well enough with what they now have. California House Speaker Jesse Unruh has demonstrated how better pay, modern procedures, and adequate clerical, research, and office facilities can improve legislative effectiveness. So have other states. What is required is best reflected in the Final Report of the Twenty-Ninth American Assembly"[5] (Sanford 1968: 181).
Among those recommendations of the American Assembly, many of which resemble those made by the CCSL (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a, 1971b), were:
"In many states, legislatures operate under severe constitutional limitations on their powers.... Constitutions should, however, leave legislatures as unhampered as possible, encouraging the development of their own self-reliance. Constitutional limits on the taxing power, constitutional earmarking of revenues ... and other limitations on a legislature's power to appropriate public funds, and to address itself to public questions, should be eliminated.
2. The referendum should not be employed to reverse legislative decisions or to evade legislative responsibility...
6. State constitutions should provide for periodic mandatory reapportionment. When initial responsibility for reapportionment is vested in a legislature, the authority and duty should be placed in a nonlegislative agency to effect the reapportionment should the legislature itself fail to do so…
8. Legislatures should be of a [smaller] size to make the position of legislators more important and visible. ...
12. Competent professional staff should be provided the legislature. . . . In addition, legislatures should provide central services, including bill drafting, law revision, legislative library and reference services. Such central services should be staffed by professional personnel employed on a permanent nonpartisan basis ...
13. State legislators should be provided adequate offices ..
14. State legislators should utilize a strong system of standing committees, few in number, with broad, well-defined jurisdictions…
16 . . . . Efforts to define and control conflicts of interest have satisfied neither the public nor the legislatures. We recommend First, codes of ethics. . . . Second, ethics committees . . . with advisory, review, and investigative functions which should extend to the activities of lobbyists…
18. Legislative service will become more attractive when the public better understands the importance of legislatures in a democratic society. To improve this understanding, and to enhance the prestige of legislative service, programs should be undertaken to interpret the functions of state legislatures to and through mass media, and educational and civil institutions" (Heard 1966).
The national perspective on state legislators in the mid 1960s recognized the institutional problems. The average state legislator was without staff assistance to conduct research and investigations, or even to answer constituent mail (Heard 1966: 114). In that era, only four states provided office space to legislators – California, Florida, North Carolina, and Texas (Heard 1966: 135).
In 1967, Duke University and the American Assembly cosponsored the Duke University Assembly on State Legislatures. That group of 45 representatives met at Quail Roost north of Durham to discuss conditions in and prospects for the legislatures of Virginia, West Virginia, and North Carolina (Duke University Assembly on State Legislatures. 1967: iv). North Carolina State University Political Science Department Chair Preston Edsall presented the group with a paper on the state of the North Carolina General Assembly in 1967 (Duke University Assembly on State Legislatures. 1967: 33-67) Edsall asked whether the General Assembly should meet annually, restrictions on its members' pay be removed from the State Constitution, and whether the number of standing committees should be reduced, as well as suggesting electronic voting and better record keeping of records of committee action and floor debate. Edsall's paper included detailed statistics on length of legislative sessions and member compensation.
The Duke University Assembly on State Legislatures issued several recommendations in 1967 for the Virginia, West Virginia, and North Carolina legislatures, among them:
"3. The working conditions of state legislatures should be dramatically improved. This action should enable state legislatures to perform their duties more effectively and contribute to making legislative service more attractive. Legislatures should be provided with:
a. Better facilities, such as those of the North Carolina
legislature.[6]
b. Increased competent, professional staff.
c. Adequate compensation for state legislatures …
4. Important substantive committees should be continuing committees, with continuing staffs and operating budgets.
5. legislatures should meet annually and they should decide the length of legislative sessions…
8. Require disclosure of information adequate for public appraisal of possible conflict of interest of legislators…" (Duke University Assembly on State Legislatures. 1967: 148-49).
Sanford concluded with this analysis:
"These suggestions for reforms could not have been taken seriously ten years ago. It may be that the voters and legislators are now ready. The results, if they can be accomplished, will improve the quality of state legislation, the tone of state leadership, and the strength of the states' position. Far from restraining the governors, a renewed and refreshed legislature, armed with the means of modern government, will bring a vigorous effort to the same objectives the governors have. My guess is that legislative leaders will find governors willing workers for reforms of this kind" (Sanford 1968: 183-184).
In 1994, Jack Fleer weighed in with his opinion on the North Carolina General Assembly:
"During the twentieth century, two characterizations of North Carolina's General Assembly have been widely publicized and debated. One is that the assembly has been, is, and should continue to be a "citizens' legislature." This view holds that the legislature should be composed of members who reflect and represent the state's citizenry. Frequently, this outlook sees state representatives and senators as citizens who are regularly and permanently engaged in professions and occupations but who take some time from their normal activities to go to Raleigh to serve part time, for short tenure, and with nominal pay to debate and enact laws for the state. Such persons think of themselves first as teachers, professors, lawyers, doctors, bankers, business people, and private citizens and second as legislators and public officials. According to this perspective, a legislature would better reflect and be sensitive to the everyday problems and concerns of North Carolinians if it were composed of citizens and not career officials. Through the 1960s and early 1970s, reform proposals were often measured against this view so as not to undermine the "citizens' legislature" model … Regardless of the veracity of these characterizations of the state legislature, they have had great influence on the development of the institution and its relationship to other components of the state government in the last half-century. In the nation and in the state, however, another vision of the legislature and legislators has emerged. This is the concept of the 'professional' legislature composed of a new breed of legislator who is full time, well paid, experienced through extended tenure, and professionally trained with a career orientation to public service. The concept of the professional legislature was highlighted in a 1971 report of the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures. The study called for reforms so that a legislature would meet five objectives: 'To function effectively, to account to the public for its actions, to gather and use information, to avoid undue outside influence, and to represent its people.' The report assessed every state legislature and recommended many reforms and improvements to meet the objectives. The North Carolina General Assembly was ranked forty-seventh out of the fifty states, falling far short of the report's standards and objectives" (Fleer 1994: 64-5).
By 2004, a longer perspective on the Citizens Conference recommendations was available. Rosenthal notes:
"If the institution and the process are what matter most, then assessment has to focus on the legislature itself. Such a focus ordinarily has led to an assessment tied to the legislature's structure … Structural features range widely, and they include elements that might also be categorized as capacity … Led by the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University, and the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures (CCSL), the reform movement represented a sustained national effort to modernize State Legislatures" (Rosenthal 2004: 7).
Rosenthal recognized that by ranking the states from 1 to 50, CCSL was wanting lower-ranked states to reform themselves to more resemble the higher-ranked states, which already had devoted substantial resources to their legislative branch (Rosenthal 1974: 7-8). Rosenthal understood that the criteria and scoring used by CCSL were "arbitrary, at best". (Rosenthal 2004: 8). The assumption of the CCSL study was that the greater the capacity, the better the legislature, and that using a quantifiable social science methodology with hundreds of data elements and rankings would satisfy a political objective of encouraging reform (Rosenthal 2004: 8).
Legislatures are durable, fascinating, complex and very human institutions (Rosenthal 1981: xi). Studying the CCSL recommendations themselves, along with reaction from the press and the academic community helps provide a framework for understanding the details of legislative actions on the reforms, to be discussed in the following chapter.
CHAPTER IV
THE NORTH CAROLINA RECOMMENDATIONS FOLLOWED BY IMPLEMENTATION 1971-2004
INTRODUCTION TO THE CCSL RECOMMENDATIONS
CCSL made 23 recommendations for action to reform the North Carolina General Assembly (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 265-270; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 272-276). In this Chapter each individual recommendation is set out verbatim[7] in italics (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a), followed by actions on those recommendations through November 1, 2004. The parentheticals cite to page numbers from the full recommendations in the Praeger publication (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a), and the Bantam print (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b) but it should be noted that the Bantam print summarizes some of them.
GENERAL COMMENTS BY CCSL
CCSL prefaced its recommendations with general comments about the State of the North Carolina General Assembly as the 1960s came to an end. Those introductory remarks were largely positive in tone, but set the stage for extensive criticism in the 23 recommendations for action that followed.
GENERAL: (Part A) The North Carolina General Assembly, in recognition of its own shortcomings, has created a citizens' commission to study the legislature's operations and procedures in order to recommend specific improvements. The commission has assigned task forces according to subject matter to pursue independent courses of study. The commission intends to issue at least an interim, if not a final, report to the 1970 session of the General Assembly. While it can be expected that the caliber of the commission's recommendations will be of the highest order, it is unfortunate that they have not yet drawn more public awareness to their efforts. (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 265; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 272)
This commission was established by a joint resolution of the 1969 North Carolina legislative session[8] entitled "A JOINT RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA; AND DEFINING THE METHOD OF APPOINTMENT, POWERS, AND DUTIES OF THIS COMMITTEE."
The Commission was to have 30 members plus the House Speaker and Lieutenant Governor. The preamble to the proactive resolution clearly recognized that CCSL was undertaking its study:
"WHEREAS, The North Carolina General Assembly is facing ever-increasing problems in fulfilling its responsibilities to the people of the State of North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, The declared policy of the General Assembly of North Carolina is to improve its legislative process to the end that it may truly become, in the fullest sense, an equal and coordinate branch of the government of this State; and
WHEREAS, The effective pursuit of these goals will require a comprehensive study over an extended period of time to determine and define the problems and develop solutions for them; and
WHEREAS, National Organizations and foundations headed by outstanding citizens from all walks of life have been formed to encourage and assist in this endeavor, and other established national organizations have made the improvement of legislatures one of their major objectives, indicating that substantial improvements will be forthcoming on a national scale; and
WHEREAS, The General Assembly has great respect for the ability of the people of the State and desires to have and to make use of their knowledge and views concerning legislative improvement;"
The Commission was given a lofty goal:
"Sec. 4. It shall be the duty of the Committee to study the legislative needs, organization, facilities, and functions with the goal of improving and strengthening the ability of the General Assembly to fulfill its responsibilities in our representative democracy. The study will be broad and comprehensive in scope. In order to make its findings known to the Legislature and the citizens of the State, the Committee shall submit interim reports as it deems necessary; and a final report which will set out the problems as it has found them to exist, together with its proposals and recommendations to resolve those problems and improve the General Assembly."
No record can be found in the North Carolina Legislative Library of the committee having met or issued a report.
(Part B) The North Carolina General Assembly has one of the newest and in some ways most attractive state legislative buildings. The chambers of the Senate and House are superior in most regards. There are three auditorium hearing rooms, one for each house and a shared room which seats almost 300 people. There are numerous committee rooms for each house (eleven in the House, nine in the Senate and eight shared between the houses) of superior quality. All members have individual, private offices. The only apparent limitation in the legislative building is that there are no news conference rooms available for the news media, and there is a lack of space for future expansion of staff assigned to leaders and members.
In 1982, the Legislative Office Building was constructed behind the Legislative Building. This six-story structure originally had three floors used by the General Assembly and the remaining three floors used by other state agencies, but by 2002, only one small suite remained used by the Executive Branch. As noted in recommendation 18 below, a press conference room was added in the 1993 renovations to the Legislative Building.
While members had individual private offices at the time of the 1971 report, addition of clerical staff for the members beginning with the 1973 session (see Recommendation 13) forced sharing of the private office by the member and staff. With the opening of the Legislative Office Building in 1982, a member's clerical staff was located in a separate private office either connecting to or adjacent to the member's office.
(Part C) In 1969, the statutory provision limiting the number of days legislators could be paid during regular session (120 days) was removed. The General Assembly is, therefore, less encumbered in the odd-year sessions each biennium. The most recent innovation in legislative operations occurred at the 1970 general election, when voters approved a constitutional amendment to permit the General Assembly's presiding officers to convene the legislature in special sessions when petitioned by two-thirds of the number of each house. (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 265-266; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 272-273)
The petition requirement cited by CCSL was erroneous, and is in fact three-fifths of all the members, rather than two-thirds as they indicated.[9] CCSL corrected that reference in its 1972 progress report (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1972: 39).
RECOMMENDATION 1. REMOVE CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON SESSION AND INTERIM TIME.
The legislature should have authority to function throughout a two-year term; ideally, this authority should provide a flexible biennial session pattern that permits the legislature to convene, recess, and reconvene as it deems desirable. The legislature should be able to meet in general session or conduct interim work as it deems necessary at any time throughout the period.
Permit annual general sessions, limited to no fewer than ninety legislative days (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 266; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 273).
In fact there were no constitutional limitations on session and interim time. There was, however, a long-standing custom of meeting only in the odd-numbered years, and until approval of a constitutional amendment by the General Assembly in 1967 were limited to 120 days of per diem allowances (Duke University Assembly on State Legislatures. 1967: 40). The 1955 House of Representatives had actually passed a constitutional amendment affirmatively requiring annual sessions, but no Senate action was taken. (Duke University Assembly on State Legislatures 1967: 43).
The Legislative Research Commission noted in a 1967 report recommending against annual sessions that the General Assembly already had the power to adjourn to meet in the even-numbered year (North Carolina General Assembly. 1967: 5). While the 1971 legislative session passed a resolution providing for adjournment from July 21, 1971 until October 26, 1971 "to consider only those matters relating to the restructuring of higher education"[10] and met for five days until adjourning sine die, it was the 1973 session that first provided for the regular session to meet again in the even-numbered year. The 1973 Session adjourned from May 24, 1973 until January 16, 1974[11] and met for almost 90 days adjourning sine die on April 13, 1974. That was the last experiment with a so-called "short session" with no limits on subject matter. The 1975 session adjourned on June 26, 1975 to meet again on May 3, 1976 "…for a session not to exceed 30 calendar days … [to] consider only bills and resolutions directly affecting the budget",[12]. although the resolution allowed the short session by a resolution adopted by a two-thirds vote to take up other matters. The short session in 1976 met just 11 calendar days.
The "short" session grew over the years, generally convening in May after the primary, in 1998 finally adjourning the day before Halloween. North Carolina was approaching a full-time legislature without admitting it. Table 1 and 2 are condensations of data from Legislative Statistics 1965-2004, North Carolina General Assembly, Legislative Library.
TABLE 1. Legislative/calendar days of short sessions 1974-2004
|YEAR LEG DAYS LEG DAYS CALENDAR |
| HOUSE SENATE DAYS |
|1974 64 64 88 |
|1976 10 10 12 |
|1978 13 13 17 |
|1980 15 15 21 |
|1982 17 15 22 |
|1984 23 22 31 |
|1986 29 30 42 |
|1988 28 28 41 |
|1990 46 42 69 |
|1992 42 41 61 |
|1994 32 31 47 |
|1996 46 45 67 |
|1998 100 101 172 |
|2000 41 41 67 |
|2002 78 70 130 |
|2004 44 44 80 |
The part of the session held in the odd-numbered years has become known as the "long session". Since 1971, its span has varied from a low of 135 calendar days in 1973 to 317 calendar days in 2001. Actual days in which one House met in session (a legislative day) has been as low as 97 in the 1973 session to as high as 179 days for in the 2001 Session.
TABLE 2. Legislative/calendar days of long sessions 1971-2003
|YEAR LEG DAYS LEG DAYS CALENDAR |
| HOUSE SENATE DAYS |
|1971 160 160 190 |
|1973 97 97 135 |
|1975 117 117 163 |
|1977 123 123 170 |
|1979 108 107 150 |
|1981 127 126 178 |
|1983 138 137 192 |
|1985 118 118 164 |
|1987 134 135 187 |
|1989 137 128 214 |
|1991 106 99 168 |
|1993 110 109 179 |
|1995 108 109 186 |
|1997 123 123 212 |
|1999 103 101 176 |
|2001 179 173 317 |
|2003 102 102 173 |
Fleer examined the same trends toward longer legislative session, noting:
"Since 1973, after the election of the first Republican governor in the state in this century, the General Assembly has been meeting in annual sessions. Beginning in 1975-76, the pattern of a "regular" session about seven months long in odd-numbered years and a "short" session of approximately four to six weeks in even-numbered years has been followed. This pattern, along with an increase in the number of interim legislative study commission meetings between sessions, has given the legislature a more continuing presence in Raleigh and in state politics" (Fleer 1994: 70).
The trend toward longer and longer legislative session since the elimination of the 120 day cap on per diem payments in 1967 has brought a response from some legislators wanting to put a constitutional limit on the length of the session (although not an end to meeting each year.) The Senate passed a proposed Constitutional amendment in every session since 1995 to limit the length of the legislative session (Hoyle 2002) but none of those measures was approved by the House of Representatives. The most recent effort in 2003[13] would have limited the session to 135 calendar days in the odd-numbered year and 60 calendar days in the even-numbered year.
Recommendation #1 has been implemented.
RECOMMENDATION 2. REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COMMITTEES
Ideally, there should be from ten to fifteen committees in each house parallel in jurisdiction. This would reduce the general complexity of the legislature and would permit reducing the number of committee assignments per member.
With thirty-seven committees in the House and thirty in the Senate, there are more committees than should be necessary for the effective organization of the work. This overage is more severe in relation to the House than it is to the Senate (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 266; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 273).
This was not the first recommendation to reduce the number of legislative committees. In 1967, a Legislative Research Commission subcommittee recommended cutting the number of committees in half. (North Carolina General Assembly. 1967 27) but the final report of the commission dropped any mention of this goal. (North Carolina General Assembly. 1967) Since the recommendations, the number of Senate Committees has varied from as few as 12 in 1997 to as many as 32 in 1971 and 1981 (see Table 3).[14] In the House, it has varied from as few as 12 in 1989 to as many as 48 in the 1981 session.[15] These totals do not include select committees, nor do they include subcommittees.[16] Interestingly, in the 1981 Senate Session with 41 Democratic members, Lt. Governor Jimmy Green appointed 38 committees and subcommittees, leaving just three Democratic members without a chairmanship. The number of House committees took its steepest decline from 1987 to 1989, dropping from 47 to 12 after the Mavretic revolution, when Democratic Representative Joe Mavretic was elected Speaker of the House on a reform platform with a coalition of Republicans and a dozen or so maverick Democrats.
A countervailing pressure keeping the number of committees high is using the position of committee chair to reward supporting leadership. This pressure is not as high as it once was because of the increasing trend of appointing multiple chairs for a committee. For example, in 1971, the House Appropriations Committee had a single chair, with the same still true in 1987. In the 1989 Session under Speaker Joe Mavretic there was still a single chair of that committee, but by 1999 there were three co-chairs, with four in 2001 and eight in 2003.[17]
TABLE 3. Number of Standing Committees, 1971-2003
|Year Senate House |
|1971 32 39 |
|1973 27 38 |
|1975 24 40 |
|1977 28 28 |
|1979 29 42 |
|1981 32 48 |
|1983 30 47 |
|1985 23 47 |
|1987 29 47 |
|1989 28 12 |
|1991 26 24 |
|1993 21 24 |
|1995 13 21 |
|1997 12 24 |
|1999 16 39 |
|2001 18 37 |
|2003 14 31 |
Fleer commented in 1994 on the trends in the number of legislative committees:
"The importance of the committee system to the organization of the legislature is made clear by the fact that committee structure and composition were at the center of the controversies in the 1989 sessions of the House and the Senate. Standing committees and subcommittees have been sites of decision making in the legislative body because of the need for division of labor and the development of expertise…The Senate has had approximately 35 committees since 1957. In 1993, there were 23 Senate committees and 6 appropriations subcommittees.[18] In the House, there was an average of 53 committees in the period 1957-87. The dramatic leadership change in 1989 was accompanied by a drastic reduction of the number of standing committees and the creation of many subcommittees. In the 1989 session, 13 committees and 50 subcommittees handled the business of the House. The figures changed to 24 committee and 33 subcommittees in 1991 and 24 committees and 20 subcommittees in 1993. Before the house reform, North Carolina had the largest number of standing committees among the fifty state legislatures" (Fleer 1994 74-75).
Recommendation #2 has been partially implemented. The reduction of Senate committees from 32 in 1971 to 14 in 2003 falls within the recommended range of 10 to 15 committees. The House has dropped slightly from 39 to 31 committees.
RECOMMENDATION 3. REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
In order to make it possible for members to concentrate their attention and contribute effectively, there should be no more than three committee assignments for each member of the lower house and four committee assignments for each member of the Senate. The multiplicity of assignments introduces problems of scheduling, strains the focus of attention on the part of members, and creates an inordinately heavy workload for members if committees are as active as they should be. At present, ninety-nine percent of the members of the House have more than three committee assignments each, and 100 percent of the members of the Senate have more than four committee assignments each (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 266-267; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 273).
Except during the 1989 Mavretic revolution, and in a less substantial drop between 2001 and 2003, the number of committee assignments per House member remained high for most of the 1971-1999 period. In the Senate, the number of committee assignments per member remained high at first, but has dropped over the three decades from nine to six per member. A spot check of average committee assignments per member is shown in Table 4.[19]
TABLE 4. standing committee assignments per member 1971-2003
|YEAR House Senate |
|1971 7.0 9.0 |
|1973 7.0 9.0 |
|1975 6.0 6.0 |
|1977 6.6 8.1 |
|1987 8.8 8.1 |
|1989 4.0 8.2 |
|2001 6.5 7.1 |
|2003 5.0 6.0 |
Fleer's analysis was similar:
"The large number of committees and subcommittees gives each member numerous appointments and substantive responsibilities. In 1987, the average Democratic representative served on 10.7 committees, and his Republican counterpart, 9.9 committees. In the Senate, the figures were 9.9 for Democratic members and 8.0 for Republicans. Although the figures have varied since the 1960s they remained high until 1989. In the 1989, 1991, and 1993 House sessions, this pattern was modified in that members had fewer assignments. In 1993, the typical Senate member served on 7 committees, and the typical representative, 5 committees"[20] (Fleer 1994: 75).
While it is commonly assumed that the reason for the overthrow of Liston Ramsey as Speaker at the beginning of the 1989 session was because of autocratic leadership, it can also be seen that the committee workload per member reached a staggering amount. Instead of cutting the number of committee assignments per member from 7 to 3 as recommended by CCSL, the number rose to nine. After the Mavretic revolution, it dropped to four, then gradually rose until the 6.5 level of the 2001 session, about where it started 30 years before.
In the 2003 session, when there was a dual speakership between Democrat Jim Black and Republican Richard Morgan, the number of assignments dropped to five per member, and not just on an average basis. While a handful of members had four or six assignments, over 100 members had five. This unusual situation likely resulted from the mathematics required by the resolution implementing the power sharing arrangement.[21] The resolution required that each committee have an equal number of members from each party, and with the House of Representatives having 60 members from each party, a decision to have an equal number of assignments per member enabled the math to work.
Fleer shared my analysis of the effect of the Mavretic revolution on the workload of members:
"Led by a core of experienced but unhappy Democrats, a coalition of forty-five of forty-six Republicans and twenty dissident Democrats was organized to bring change to the house and to support a new Speaker. The effort was supported by Republican governor James G. Martin, Jr., who had been reelected in November 1988. The goal was election of a new Speaker who would make organizational reforms possible. The coalition was bipartisan, nonideological, and not motivated by particular issues. It was united by its dissatisfaction with the leadership of the incumbent Speaker and his allies. The dissidents' "Statement of Intent" set forth three goals: limiting the tenure of the Speaker to no more than two terms, permitting more members to participate in house business, and reorganizing the house committee structure to increase power sharing. While the majority Democratic Party would continue to control major standing committees, the minority Republican Party would have members appointed as chairpeople of permanent subcommittees to reflect their number in the house membership. Committee and subcommittee membership was to be apportioned in accordance with the sizes of the two party delegations in the house. Fair representation of the minority was to be guaranteed in other legislative decisionmaking groups such as study commissions, research commissions, and legislative services commissions. The absence of such representation for Republicans had been their major criticism of the house Democratic leadership" (Fleer 1994: 73).
Recommendation #3 has been partially implemented. Average House per member committee assignments dropped from seven to five, with a goal of three. Average Senate per member committee assignments dropped from nine to six, with a goal of four.
RECOMMENDATION 4. COMMITTEE JURISDICTION
A description of the jurisdiction of committees should be contained in the rules of both houses, and assignment of bills should be made in accord with the jurisdiction of committees as described in the rule. (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 267; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 273).
In 1971, the House and Senate Rules set out the jurisdiction of the Appropriations and Finance Committees, but no others. That has not changed except for creation of the Pensions and Retirement Committees which must handle all legislation relating to those areas. House Rule 38 (see Appendix I for the full text) as of the 2003 session provides that the House Appropriations Committee handles all bills that carry "an appropriation from the State … [or] [r]equires or will require in the future substantial additional State monies from the General Fund or Highway Fund to implement its provisions. The House Finance committee considers all bills "which in any way or manner raises revenue, reduces revenue, levies a tax, authorizes the levying of a tax, an assessment, or a fee, or authorizes the issue of bonds or notes, whether public, public-local, or private". Senate Rule 42 of the 2003 Session is similar (see Appendix I for full text). House Rule 36.2 and Senate Rule 42.2 require bills changing state and local government retirement or employee benefit bills to go to a committee specifically charged with those matters (See Appendix I for full text).
Recommendation #4 has been partially implemented.
RECOMMENDATION 5. NOTICE OF MEETINGS
The rules should require a minimum notice of five legislative days for committee meetings and hearings, with widely disseminated announcement of schedule, location, agenda, and availability of public participation (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 267; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 273).
Senate rules were amended in 1969 (North Carolina General Assembly. Senate. 1969) to provide for five days notice of public hearings by committees. The House adopted a similar rule in 1979 (North Carolina General Assembly. House of Representatives. 1979). The House adopted a rule in 1969 requiring a schedule of committee meetings for the session to be promulgated by the Rules Committee (North Carolina General Assembly. House of Representatives. 1969). In 1993, the Senate adopted a rule requiring committee meetings to be announced on the floor and listed on the calendar for the day ((North Carolina General Assembly. Senate. 1993). For Senate and House Rules current as of 2003 concerning meeting notice, see Appendix II. Until 1997, calendars appeared the morning of the day's session, since that time, they have been sent by electronic mail to members and other interested parties late in the day before. Calendars including committee meetings also appear at the General Assembly website at at the time they are released. Committee agendas began to appear on the Senate calendar in the early 1990's, in the House in the late 1990's.
Recommendation #5 has been implemented.
RECOMMENDATION 6. OPEN COMMITTEES.
The rules of each house should prohibit secret meetings except in matters affecting the security of the state, or which could unnecessarily damage the reputation of individuals in personnel matters. Such exceptions should be sparingly and responsibly employed (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 267; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 27).
Since at least 1955, the House rules have required committee meetings to be open except in unusual circumstances. The current House rules do not allow any exceptions (North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 1955). (See Appendix III for current House rules.) Senate Rule 36 currently bars closed meetings, except as allowed by the Open meetings Law. Similar rules have been in effect at least since 1955 (North Carolina General Assembly, Senate. 1955). (See Appendix III for current Senate rules.)
Enacted in 1971,[22] the Open Meetings Law requires ALL meetings of government bodies to be open. G.S. 143-318.4(1) as enacted in 1971 stated: "Any committee or subcommittee of the General Assembly has the inherent right to hold an executive session when it determines that it is absolutely necessary to prevent personal embarrassment or when it is in the best interest of the State; and in no event shall any final action be taken by any committee or subcommittee except in open session.[23]" This specific exemption for legislative committees was repealed in 1979.[24] The 1991 session enacted a general statute on Open Meetings Law coverage for legislative bodies which codifies the general requirement of openness, with some narrow exceptions.[25] While conference committees are exempt from the Open Meetings Law, many conference reports are negotiated by the conference committee chairs from each house without the formality of a meeting. As noted above, these exceptions would apply only in the Senate, as the House has an absolute prohibition on closed meetings. (see Appendix III for statutes on Open Meetings Law coverage of legislative bodies, as well as certain statutory exemptions.)
In 1989, the House adopted rules to put some more teeth into enforcement of the Open Meetings Law for meetings of committees by allowing the Ethics Committee to investigate alleged violations (North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 1989).
While the rules and procedures adopted by the House and Senate resulted in the legislative process being generally accessible and open, (Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press 2001) the General Assembly for many years had a tradition that a small group of powerful legislators known as the "supersub" met in secret to formulate key details of the state budget (Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press 2001). Since this was not an official committee, the literal wording of the Open Meetings law did not apply to it.[26]
Recommendation #6 has been implemented.
RECOMMENDATION 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
There is no justification for permitting any major piece of legislation to become law without having been subjected to extensive, thorough, well-planned, and well-prepared public hearings, in which representatives of the public, civic organizations, and interest groups are not only invited but encouraged to participate (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 267; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 273).
There are not now nor have there ever been any requirements in either chamber mandating public hearings. Senate and House rules do provide a structure for allowing public hearings. The Senate puts the decision on allowing public hearings in the discretion of the committee chair to which the bill is assigned, while the House allows the chair's decision to be appealed to the Speaker. This language allowing the decision of the chair to be appealed to the Speaker was added in 1979. (See Appendix IV for applicable House and Senate rules)
Recommendation #7 has been partially implemented.
RECOMMENDATION 8. RECORD AND PUBLISH PROCEEDINGS OF COMMITTEES.
Record and publish the record of committee hearings, proceedings, and vote (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 267; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 274).
In 1979, the Senate adopted a rule that requires each committee to keep and compile written minutes and file them in the Legislative Library after each session (North Carolina General Assembly, Senate. 1979). The House adopted a similar rule in 1985 (North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 1985). (see Appendix V for text of the current rules)
The Legislative Library has nearly complete Senate committee minutes beginning in 1975 with scattered holdings back to 1969 and House committee minutes beginning in 1977 with scattered holdings back to 1971. There is a separate minute book or books for each committee for each session. Recorded are normally the proceedings of the committee (not transcripts) with copies of substitutes and amendment presented, sign-in lists of those in attendance, copies of hand-outs provided to the committee, and if allowed or required by the rules, copies of the sheets where roll-call votes are recorded. Some of these minutes are on paper and some on film.
Legislative Library holdings of minutes of interim studies begin in the early 1970s. The issue of publishing committee roll-call votes is discussed at greater length in recommendation 9.
Recommendation #8 has been implemented.
RECOMMENDATION 9. PUBLISH COMMITTEE ROLL CALLS
The committee report of action on bills to the respective houses should include those roll calls which are taken, showing how each member voted. These committee reports should be available to the press and public. Published roll calls should apply to those bills recommended for approval as well as those killed (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 267; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 274).
The usefulness of these rules has varied over time. In 1969, the Senate added a rule forbidding roll-call votes in committee (North Carolina General Assembly, Senate. 1969). That rule was replaced in 1977 by a rule allowing committee roll-call votes if 1/3 of the committee membership requested it (North Carolina General Assembly, Senate. 1977). In 1981, this rule was dropped entirely (North Carolina General Assembly, Senate. 1981), to be replaced in 1983 with reinstatement of the roll banning roll-call votes (North Carolina General Assembly, Senate. 1983). (see Appendix VI for the text of the Senate Rule)
House rules require a roll call vote in House committees at the request of 1/5 of the members. Up until 1975, House rules forbade roll-call votes in committee, although that rule was amended in 1975 to give the committee chair the option of allowing roll-call votes. (North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 1975) The current rule was adopted in 1977 (North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 1977). (see Appendix VI for the text of the House Rule). Committee roll call votes in the House can be found in the minutes of each committee, which are filed in the Legislative Library (see Recommendation 8).
Recommendation #9 has been implemented in the House of Representatives, but not in the Senate.
RECOMMENDATION 10. INTERIM COMMITTEES.
(Part A) When the legislature is not in session, the standing committees should become the interim committees for the purpose of conducting long-range studies of state policy issues. The Legislative Council or some similarly constituted, bi-partisan committee should serve as the supervising agency for interim committees and their studies, budgets, and personnel. The major committees should be staffed on a year-round basis (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 267; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 274).
This was contemplated in the early 1970s. The 1973 Session enacted a structure for standing committees to meet during the interim between sessions.[27] The 1973 session adjourned just seven days later, to reconvene in 1974 for an unrestricted annual session. Dissatisfaction about the length of the second year session let to the abandonment of this experiment after the 1974 session. Since that time, the only standing committees to meet during the interim has been the appropriations committee, which typically will convene in the even numbered year a week or two prior to reconvening of the regular session. No standing committees have met after sine die adjournment of the short session. Instead, the Legislative Research Commission and independent studies have continued as the norm.
(Part B) In the past, two kinds of activity have taken place during the interim; studies commissioned or undertaken personally by the Legislative Research Commission, and independent (interim) study commissions. Recognizing the problems resulting from such a discontinuous approach, a partial solution has been evolving due to the lack of coordination, planning, scheduling, budgeting, reviewing, and evaluating of interim activity. The Legislative Services Commission and the Legislative Research Commission have been attempting to fill the void to the degree possible. While these ad hoc efforts are admirable in intent, we recommend a more rational approach (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 268; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 274).
There have been no successful attempts at rationality. There has, however, been a continual increase in funding for legislative studies. Table 5 shows the level of funding for the Legislative Research Commission (North Carolina, Governor. 1977-78, 1980-81, 1990-1991, 2001-2002). Table 6 also shows funding[28] for independent studies within the Legislative Branch as well as the Legislative Research Commission.. An independent study is one conducted by an ad hoc or permanent commission within the Legislative branch, other than the Legislative Research Commission.
The General Assembly passes an annual studies act, assigning some topics to the Legislative Research Commission, and others to independent studies within the Legislative Branch. The studies act is an attempt to have a one-stop shop for keeping up with studies.
TABLE 5. Legislative Research Commission (LRC) Budgets.
|FISCAL YEAR ACTUAL |
| EXPENDITURES |
|1975-76 $139,256 |
|1979-80 $140,239 |
|1989-90 $449,998 |
TABLE 6. Budgets for LRC and Independent Legislative Studies
|FISCAL YEAR LRC INDEPENDENT TOTAL |
|1997-99 $450,000 $ 898,091 $1,348,091 |
|1999-2001 $450,000 $ 870,653 $1,320,653 |
|2001-2003 $450,000 $1,146,037 $1,596,037 |
|2003-2004 $381,426 $1,196,037 $1,577,463 |
Fleer noted the increasing influence of formal legislative study commissions: "Between sessions of the General Assembly, members frequently serve on interim groups called legislative study commissions. These groups have be come significant participants in investigating public policy issues and framing legislative proposals. They do not replace committees but complement their work" (Fleer 1994. 76-77).
Generally, commissions have authority to hold public hearings, to hear expert testimony, and to make recommendations for legislation to the General Assembly. They may be composed entirely of legislators or they may include other public officials or private citizens. Normally, professional and clerical staff is provided. Frequently, the commissions operate under the direction of the Legislative Research Commission (LRC), composed of the leader and five members from each house. Subjects for study may be determined by the LRC or authorized by a resolution adopted by the legislature. Independent study commissions vary in form from other commissions in that they may exist over several terms; for example, the Governmental Evaluation Commission, established in 1977, continued its work until 1981; the Mental Health Study Commission, created in 1973, continued to operate until 2000. The Joint Legislative Utility Review Committee was established in 1985,[29] and the Environmental Review Commission in 1988,[30] both still actively functioned in 2004.
Legislative studies are largely established for three reasons or combinations of reasons: (i) to achieve a consensus on a legislative solution; (ii) to solve highly technical issues; or (iii) to delay action on controversial issues.
The numbers and topics of study commissions vary from session to session. In 1981-82, fifty-three interim study commissions operated, examining such issues as aging, children with special needs, teacher tenure, campaign finance, and midwifery. The 1991 General Assembly authorized the LRC to study seventy topics, and seventeen independent study commissions were created or modified. Topics included services for the aging, voter participation, public education policies, homelessness, and access to health care. The use of legislative study commissions is likely to continue as the range and number of policy subjects grow and the legislature remains a part-time body (Fleer 1994. 76-77).
A decade later, there were a total of 80 subject areas for which studies were directed for report to the 2003 General Assembly, and a total of 70 permanent, temporary, or select committees or commissions doing legislative studies (North Carolina General Assembly, Research Division. 2004).
Recommendation #10 has been partially implemented.
RECOMMENDATION 11. STRENGTHEN STAFF SUPPORT
(Part A) Legislative research, fiscal, legal, and planning agencies should be adequately staffed to full utility and at suitable salary levels for professional qualification. Professional staffing should be at a level to enable the legislature to conduct continuous, year-round examination of state resources and expenditures as well as program review and evaluation of state agencies. Staff agencies should be upgraded to the level at which competent and timely service can be provided to every member of the legislature (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 268; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 274).
The General Assembly began upgrading its professional staff with the creation of the Fiscal Research Division in 1971, the Research Division in 1974, and the Bill Drafting Division in 1977 (Coble 1987). The first legal analyst was authorized by the Legislative Services Commission on August 11, 1971, and a second research position was authorized on September 24, 1971. The Commission received 123 applications for that position.[31]
North Carolina was the last state to have its own Bill Drafting service. Salaries became competitive with the remainder of state government after implementation in the mid 1990's of recommendations made by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Fiscal notes are now prepared on a systematic basis. The Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operation was created in 1975 and currently has 38 legislative members and conducts oversight reviews of all state agencies.
Fleer noted the increased staffing levels:
"Since 1970, trained, full-time, professional personnel have provided research and analytical support to the General Assembly through the Legislative Services Office (described later). In the 1990s, major legislative committees and interim commissions have professional staffs. All legislators have clerical staffs and private offices. The presence of professional staffs and facilities has changed the character and capacity of the legislature" (Fleer 1994 66).
Coble posited that with new staff came better accountability and even new leadership patterns (Coble 1987). Fleer detailed the chronology of the first two decades of reform:
"As noted earlier, a major change in the organization and operation of the General Assembly has been the increased availability of professional research and clerical staff. In 1971, the General Assembly created the Legislative Services Office, which has divisions for general research, fiscal research, legislative drafting, automated systems, and administration. In 1991, this 151-person staff of lawyers, political scientists, economists, and other experts provided assistance to the officers, committees, and commissions of the legislature. In addition, the legislature may call on other agencies (such as the Institute of Government), executive offices, and interest groups for expert consultation and professional services. Clerical assistance is also available. Some of these experts work on a fairly permanent basis with committees. For example, the Appropriations and Finance committees have continuous services from the Fiscal Research Division of the Legislative Services Office" (Fleer 1994: 77-78).
Fleer also noted the rapid progress North Carolina was making:
"The resurgence of state legislatures across the nation is attributed in part to the dramatic growth and increased professionalization of staffs. But the process of improving the assistance to North Carolina legislators is, according to some participants, not over. The issue of whether a larger staff is needed and whether it should extend to a wider range of legislative activities continues to be discussed. Questions are raised about the professionalism of staff and whether persons are hired on the basis of merit or as patronage. This concern focuses on several aspects of the legislative professionalism debate.
During the 1980s, the permanent legislative staff in North Carolina grew approximately 56 percent, from 80 positions to 139 positions by May 1989. Nationally during the period, legislative staff increased 24 percent overall and 65 percent for professional personnel. Thus, although the state appears to have been leading the way, it is likely that North Carolina was catching up. A survey of legislative staffs in 1979 showed that North Carolina was in the bottom fourth of states in professional staff size, with fewer than fifty persons. Indeed, almost half the states had professional staffs that were double the size of that in North Carolina. A 1988 survey concluded that the state remains "conservative" in staff development.
An upgrading of legislative staff in the state could take several directions, based on patterns and activities existing in other states. A more assertive body might want to improve its capacity for legislative oversight and thus add staff to help meet that objective. With the legislature not in session during about two-thirds of every biennium and with current staff being used primarily to support interim commissions while the legislature is not in session, additional personnel would be needed to enhance oversight. An auditing arm and investigative unit could assess the fiscal responsibility and legislative fidelity of administrative departments and agencies to determine if the legislature's will is being fulfilled. This function might be especially important with the perpetuation of competitive elections for governor, more frequent Republican victories in executive offices, and repeated divided government in the state. As members of the General Assembly become inundated with increasingly complex and technical legislation and devote more time to their legislative responsibilities, they may need individual professional staff to bolster their substantive knowledge on the broad range of issues on which decisions must be made, In the 1990s, state senators and representatives must depend on committee experts, who often work most closely with committee leaders, have little time for rank-and-file committee members, and have no time for legislators who are not on committees but must analyze and vote on issues in floor decisions" (Fleer 1994 88).
(Part B) This staff should also prepare fiscal notes accompanying all appropriation bills, evaluating their fiscal impact over the short and long term (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 268; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 274).
Senate Rules adopted in 1979 were the first requirement for fiscal notes (North Carolina General Assembly. Senate. 1979), while similar House action did not occur until 1989 (North Carolina General Assembly. House of Representatives. 1989). The full text of these rules current as of 2004 appears as Appendix VII.
In addition to these requirements, a statute passed in 1977 requires actuarial notes on all bills proposing changes in retirement or employee health benefit systems,[32] while one enacted in 1980 provides for fiscal notes on bills that impose additional costs on local government.[33]
(Part C) COMMITTEE STAFFING. Standing committees should be staffed on a permanent, year-round basis (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 268; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 274).
The Research Division operates year round providing staff to standing and interim committees, although as explained above the standing committees operate only during session.
(Part D) The Institute of Government at the University of North Carolina has, in the past, provided research and bill-drafting services to the General Assembly. The Legislative Services Office is now in the process of taking over all of the duties performed by the institute and, in addition, plans an expansion of services - especially to major committees. The General Assembly has been operating, in spite of this service, with a level of professional staff services below minimally acceptable standards. It appears the Legislative Services Office will fulfill the need for a central research bureau. It should be completely staffed with bill drafters, fiscal analysts, and subject matter (research) specialists. All committees (reduced in total number) should be assigned professional staff assistants. The major committees should be so equipped immediately, and all committees should have permanent, full-time staff as soon as possible (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 268; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 274).
While the Institute of Government still provides ad hoc research assistance, this recommendation has been completely implemented. All standing committees have professional staff assistance assigned to them supplied by permanent employees. Budgeting and permanent staff positions for the various staff divisions have increased as follows (number of positions in parentheses). All totals are actual expenditures, with information gleaned from the Governor's budget documents on file in the legislative library. Creation of full-time permanent legislative staffing was the first recommendation implemented by the General Assembly (Coble 1987).
TABLE 7. BUDGET OF FISCAL RESEARCH DIVISION
|FISCAL YEAR BUDGET POSITIONS |
| 1975-76 $ 296,354 (17) |
| 1979-80 $ 531,468 (26) |
| 1989-90 $1,742,318 (30) |
| 1999-2000 $3,411,859 (36) |
| 2001-2002 $3,386,654 (36) |
TABLE 8. BUDGET OF RESEARCH DIVISION
|FISCAL YEAR BUDGET POSITIONS |
| 1979-80 $ 309,326 (17) |
| 1989-90 $1,336,731 (29) |
| 1999-2000 $2,849,088 (38) |
| 2001-2002 $3,094,990 (42) |
TABLE 9. BUDGET OF BILL DRAFTING DIVISION
|FISCAL YEAR BUDGET POSITIONS |
| 1979-80 $ 191,668 (9) |
| 1989-90 $ 656,279 (12) |
| 1999-2000 $1,494,405 (16) |
| 2001-2002 $2,094,944 (18) |
Recommendation #11 has been implemented.
RECOMMENDATION 12. STRENGTHEN STAFF SUPPORT - LEADERS
Staff assistance should be provided to all leaders of both the majority and minority parties. Such assistance should include a secretary and an administrative assistant at the professional level, with space to work reasonably adjacent to the offices of members and leaders.
No legislative leader now has a professional staff assistant. Every leader should be provided a professional staff member immediately (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 268-269; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 274-275).
Much of the obtainable information here is oral history. Dot Barber was administrative assistant for Representative Liston Ramsey before, during, and after his four terms as Speaker of the House of Representatives. Ms. Barber told me:
"When I came to work at the General Assembly in January 1965, when the General Assembly was not in session the Speaker's Office did not have anyone working there. The same was true for 1967-68. In the 1969-70 Session, Earl Vaughan was Speaker and Sally Allen was his Secretary/Assistant and she did work some in the interim as I remember. There was not a Speaker Pro Tem then. That office was created by Jim Ramsey in 1973-74 and he appointed Billy Watkins Speaker Pro Tem. In 1975-76 Jimmy Green was Speaker and he appointed Kitch Josey as Speaker Pro Tem. Both Kitch and Billy had part time assistants (3 days a week if I remember correctly). The Speaker's Office had full time assistants starting with Jimmy Green's 1975 Session. By then I am sure the President Pro Tempore of the Senate was having some interim assistants. Jean Mims worked part-time for Horton Roundtree who was Speaker Pro Tempore in the House in 1979-80 session. I feel that they started having them in the early 70's. They did not have clerks back in those days work during the interim on state payroll. I think the Republican Party paid for part-time workers for the leaders. Most of the Speakers were lawyers themselves (Jim Ramsey, Phil Godwin, David Britt, Pat Taylor, Earl Vaughn). These were the speakers that I worked under as a secretary/clerk in the House. As I remember Jimmy Green was the first Speaker who wasn't a lawyer and Liston suggested to him that he ought to hire a lawyer to work on his staff. He hired Sam Johnson. Later, Carl Stewart hired Larry Pollard and Sid Eagles to work with him. Liston B. had Jim Long and then went to two former members who were not attorneys -- Sam Beam and Roger Bone. Liston said he had plenty of good lawyers in the General Assembly and on our General Assembly Staff if he needed legal advice." [34]
The State Budget provides little detail. The proposed budget for 1977-79 (North Carolina, Governor 1977-79) proposes for the first time a line item of $50,333 for professional staff in the Speaker's Office. Actual expenditures under this line item were $32,580 in 1977-78 (North Carolina, Governor 1979-81), $42,800 in 1979-80 (North Carolina, Governor 1981-83), $39,599 in 1981-82 (North Carolina, Governor 1983-85), and $53,047 in 1989-90 (North Carolina, Governor 1991-93). By the 1997-99 budget (North Carolina, Governor 1997-99), this line item vanishes entirely. The proposed budget for 2001-2003 (North Carolina, Governor 2001-2003) shows 22 positions in the actual Senate expenditures for 1999-2000, and an increase to 33 positions in 2000-2001. For the House of Representatives, there were 20 positions in 1999-2000, and 25 positions in 2000-2001 (North Carolina, Governor 1999). These items probably include positions not only for leadership and Principal Clerks, but also full-time member assistance.
By 2002, leadership staff had been significantly strengthened. The 2004-2005 Certified Budget for the Senate leadership is $502,085 and for the House Leadership is $501,217.[35] Table 10 shows the number of permanent and temporary staff assigned to leadership in 2004
TABLE 10. LEADERSHIP STAFF POSITIONS 2004
|OFFICE |POSITIONS |
|President Pro Tempore |9 permanent, 2 temporary |
|House Democratic Speaker |7 permanent, 4 temporary |
|House Republican Speaker |6 permanent, 1 temporary |
In addition to the permanent staff, in 2004 there were 31 permanent Senate positions and 23 permanent House positions.[36]
Recommendation #12 has been implemented.
RECOMMENDATION 13. STRENGTHEN STAFF (RANK-AND-FILE MEMBERS)
Rank-and-file members (majority and minority party on an equal basis) should be provided with individual staff assistance consisting of a minimum of an administrative assistant at the professional level and a secretary. Eventually, this should increase to the stated level of support both in the capital and in a district office.
No professional staff assistance is available to rank-and-file members either. For the short-term future, it would appear their needs will continue to grow as even more basic requirements are met. Ultimately, each legislator should be provided a professional-level staff assistant. For the immediate future, secretarial assistance should be provided during the interim for the use of the general membership (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 269; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 275).
The Legislative Services Commission took up this issue on May 10, 1972. The Commission had established a "Committee on Secretarial Service and Dictating Equipment". The committee recommendation approved that day was "Every member of the General Assembly who has served at least one full term should be provided with a personal secretary if he desires one. … new members … should have one secretary assigned to each two members … the maximum increase in secretarial personnel under our recommendation is 28 persons for the 1973 session …"[37]
By the end of the 1973 Session, the number of secretaries was such that 46 of the 50 Senators and 98 of the 120 House members had secretaries. The Legislative Services Commission voted to authorize all members to have a private secretary effective for the 1974 Session.[38]
Fleer noted, "Individual members of the General Assembly are provided clerical staff to assist in constituent visits and mail, to handle telephone calls and requests for conferences, and to perform other office services during the session. No clerical staff is provided for district offices or between sessions" (Fleer 1994 78).
By 2004, every member had one five-day-per-week staff person during the session, and during the Interim, a majority of Legislative Assistants were working 12 days per month in both the Senate and House.[39] No district offices have been established.
Recommendation #13 has been partially implemented.
RECOMMENDATION 14. REQUIRE ROLL CALL ON PASSAGE OF BILLS
A recorded roll call should be required on final passage of any legislative measure, and it should require a constitutional majority to pass any bill on final action by either house (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 269; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 275).
The North Carolina Constitution requires roll-call votes when requested by one-fifth of the members,[40] when the bill raises revenue or provides for a bond issue secured by the full faith and credit of the State,[41] or when the vote is on overriding a gubernatorial veto.[42] Those roll-call votes are printed in the journals. The first two provisions were in effect when the CCSL report was issued, the third was added as part of the gubernatorial veto by the 1995 General Assembly.
The Senate rules were amended in 1975 to require recorded votes on all public bills (North Carolina General Assembly, Senate. 1975), and the House rules were amended in 1977 to require recorded votes on all bills (North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 1977). The text of these rules appears as Appendix VIII.
The requirement for passage has not been increased from a majority of those present to a majority of all the members (a so called 'constitutional majority').
Recommendation #14 has been partially implemented.
RECOMMENDATION 15. ELECTRIC ROLL CALL RECORDER
There should be an electric roll call recorder in each house. This is recommended not simply because it would speed up the proceedings (worthwhile as this may be), but because it is an efficient method of producing an error-free record of roll call votes (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 269; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 275).
This was one of the earliest recommendations implemented. The 1973 Session enacted "AN ACT TO IMPROVE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND MAKE IT MORE EFFECTIVE"[43] The two `whereas' clauses, clearly written in the context of the then recently released `Sometime Governments', stated:
"Whereas, the General Assembly of North Carolina has long endeavored to performs its functions in a responsible, efficient and economical fashion, and
Whereas, the acquisition, installation and use of electronic voting apparatus which can quickly and accurately record the vote on any issue, as provided for in the rules adopted by the House of Representatives or the Senate, is consistent with the goal of a more efficient and responsive General Assembly;"
That 1973 act called for the installation of electronic voting by the 1975 Session, and is currently codified as G.S. 120-11.2., the text of which can be found in Appendix VIII.
Electronic voting was implemented in the Senate in the 1975 Session (North Carolina General Assembly, Senate. 1975), and is regulated by Senate Rule 25 requiring electronic votes on all but local bills. Electronic votes can be had on all issues by request of 1/5 of the membership. Electronic voting was implemented in the House of Representatives two years later in the 1977 Session, and is regulated by House Rule 20, which is nearly identical to the Senate rule. Both rules can be found in Appendix VIII.
Prior to the CCSL recommendations, roll-call votes were carried in the journal of the house when required by the Constitution or when the ayes and noes were called by 1/5 of the membership (see recommendation 14 above). After electronic voting was adopted, the roll-calls require solely by the House and Senate rules were recorded on paper printouts later kept on file in the legislative library, usually filed in the bill book along with the bill, rather than in any database. An electronic database of roll-call votes, useable by the public, became available in 1997.[44]
Recommendation #15 has been implemented.
RECOMMENDATION 16. STATEMENT OF INTENT BY AUTHOR OF A BILL.
The form in which a bill is introduced should include a statement by the author describing, in laymen's language, what the bill is intended to accomplish. (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 269; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 275).
Recommendation #16 has not been implemented.
RECOMMENDATION 17. BILL SUMMARY BY BILL-DRAFTING SERVICE
The form in which bills are introduced should include a more extensive summary of the provisions of the bill, prepared by the bill-drafting service (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 269; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 275).
This has not been implemented. The Institute of Government (part of the School of Government of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) in its daily bulletin continues to digest all introduced bills, but the bill itself does not contain an internal summary. The digest is released after the bill receives first reading. According to long time Institute of Government faculty member Joe Ferrell:
"The Legislative Reporting Service dates back to 1933. It was one of the very first services offered by Mr. Coates. Henry Brandis was the first editor. In the early days, it was impossible to digest every bill, but Brandis made an attempt to summarize everything of more than routine interest. There was more editorializing in digests back then. My first exposure to LRS was in the 1965 session. By that time, we were digesting every bill. The format in use then is essentially unchanged today. I think Clyde Ball is the "father" of our current style and practice of digesting. We first began to digest every special provision in the budget bill in 1986 or 1987. As far as I know, we made no change in LRS practice in response to the 1971 report to which you refer."[45]
There has been no move to have a bill summary contained in the bill itself. Bill summaries are prepared by the General Assembly's Research Division for all bills heard in committee.
Recommendation #17 has not been implemented.
RECOMMENDATION 18. IMPROVE PRESS FACILITIES
Improved press facilities aid in the coverage of the work of the legislature. Committee rooms, and both chambers or galleries, should provide adequate space for the news media as well as lighting and electrical power connections for their equipment. Conference or interview rooms and office space should also be provided for the news media.
Although the chambers of North Carolina's new legislative building are generally superior, they do not provide the type of lighting and electrical power connections that facilitate coverage by the electronic media. That can be rectified immediately. No space has been designated as a news conference room for use by press and broadcast media representatives. Conference or interview rooms should be made available to the media (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 269-270; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 275.
An expanded and renovated press room was provided in the 1993 renovations of the Legislative Building. An individual carrel was provided for each member of the Capitol Press Corps with power and connection for a phone line and a data line. Larger rooms were provided for wire services and public television. The first press conference room was added at the same time.[46] In the chamber, seats are available for members of the press. Committee rooms, chambers or galleries, now have electrical power connections for television camera.
Recommendation #18 has been implemented.
RECOMMENDATION 19. JOINT RULES.
There should be joint rules governing the relationship and the flow of legislation between the two houses of the legislature (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 270; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 275).
An attempt was made to adopt joint rules in the 1979 session. In 1977, a joint resolution was passed setting up a committee to study the possibility of joint rules.[47] The text of that resolution appears as Appendix IX.
That committee met and proposed to the 1979 session 13 joint rules (North Carolina General Assembly, Special Interim Joint Committee. 1979). Although the joint rules were never adopted, many of them were incorporated in the House and Senate Rules between 1979 and 1989. The committee recommendations appear in bold.
1) Allows sponsorship of bills of one house by members of the other house. This was designed to cut down on companion or identical bills being filed in each house. This rule was never adopted in either house.
2) Banning celebratory, commendation and commemorative resolutions, other than those honoring the memory of deceased persons. This now appears in House Rule 31 (North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 2003) and Senate Rule 40 31 (North Carolina General Assembly, Senate. 2003), and was designed to cut down on the plethora of resolutions honoring high school football teams and the like.
3) Requiring copies of all public bills, and upon request of any one member a local bill to be provided to all members. This is now required under House Rule 35 (North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 2003) and Senate Rule 39.1 (North Carolina General Assembly, Senate. 2003).
4) Bills and resolutions, except those making appropriations, shall be engrossed before being sent to the other house. After the Joint Rules failed, this was added in the 1979 Session as House Rule 43.1 35 (North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 1979) and Senate Rule 59.1 (North Carolina General Assembly, Senate. 1979).
5) If a bill is amended in committee and re-referred to Appropriations or Finance Committee, engross the amendment before re-referral. This is now required under House Rule 38(c) (North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 2003), and Senate Rule 45.1 (North Carolina General Assembly, Senate. 2003).
6) Allow chairs of the appropriations and finance committees to request a fiscal note on a bill. This was added to as Senate Rule 42.1 in 1979 (North Carolina General Assembly, Senate. 1979), but did not appear in the House until House Rule 36.1 in 1989 (North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 2003).
7) Require actuarial notes on bills proposing changes in retirement or health benefits programs.
After the Joint Rules failed, this was added by statute in 1980.[48]
8) Have a rule on the effect of a defeated bill. The House and Senate had slightly different rules on this subject at the time. Those rules remain slightly different. House Rule 42 (North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 2003) allows earlier House bills to stay alive, while Senate Rule 53 (North Carolina General Assembly, Senate. 2003) does not allow further consideration of ANY bills.
9) All bills originating in one house must be reported out of committee in the other house unless the sponsor requests that the bill not be considered. House rules had required the same in the House Rule 36 42 (North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 1979) for House bills only (not for Senate bills). The Senate had no rule on this subject. The situation remains the same.
10) When the second house has adopted a committee substitute for a bill of the first house, it may not be considered in the first house on concurrence until the next day. The issue before the first house is concurrence, and the committee substitute may not be amended in the first house.
This represented a major change from the previous practice. Through the 1977 session, if the second house adopted a committee substitute to the bill of the first house, the first house treated it as if the bill had originated in the second house, in other words, it went on the calendar just like any other bill of the first house, and could be amended. This procedure was similar in effect to that in Congress, where a bill can go back and forth between the houses on the issue of concurrence with amendments. After the failure of the joint rules, this recommendation was put in both the Senate and House Rules for the 1979 session, forcing all such bills to be concurred in, go to conference, or die. This now appears in House Rule 43.3 (North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 2003), and Senate Rule 56.1 (North Carolina General Assembly, Senate. 2003). The practical effect of this procedural change is that it moved the initial power to resolve disputes away from the floor and to the leadership.
11) Require committees to keep written minutes, and that they be filed in the legislative library within 60 days of sine die adjournment. As noted in CCSL Recommendation 8, language requiring filing within 20 days of adjournment was added as Senate Rule 36.1 in 1979 (North Carolina General Assembly, Senate. 1979), but not in the House until House Rule 29.2 in 1985 (North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 1985).
12) After each decennial census, a redistricting committee shall be appointed. This was added as House Rule 27 (North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 1979) and Senate Rule 32 (North Carolina General Assembly, Senate. 1979) in the 1979 session.
13) Provided that the joint rules could only be suspended or amended by a 2/3 vote in each house.
This was not implemented as the Joint Rules were never adopted.
The Committee's report was introduced in the 1979 session as House Joint Resolution 14 on January 11, 1979. With a handful of stylistic changes, the joint resolution passed the House on January 13, 1979 by a vote of 110-0.[49] The Senate passed the joint resolution by a vote of 45-0 on February 13, 1979, after adopting eight amendments, the only significant one of which deleted Rule 9, which required the second house to report out of committee all bills sent over by the first house. The House voted against concurrence the next day, and a conference committee was appointed. Conferees went with the House position on Rule 9 with a few stylistic changes in the rules, and agreed to the Senate's other amendments. The conference was adopted in the House February 16, 1979 by a 109-1 vote, but was rejected in the Senate February 21, 1979 by an 18-27 vote. The Senate took the unusual step of appointing new conferees that day, and by a 37-9 vote instructing them not to adopt the House position on Rule 9. On February 23, the House voted by voice vote to reject appointment of new conferees, and the joint resolution died. As noted above, most of its recommendations other than Rule 9 eventually found their way into the separate rules of each house.
When the House and Senate adjourn from the odd-numbered year to the so-called "short session" in the even numbered year, this is done by a joint resolution containing several joint procedural rules for the short session.[50]
Recommendation #19 has been partially implemented.
RECOMMENDATION 20. REPRINT AMENDED BILLS
When a bill is amended substantially, it should be reprinted and returned to the legislature with no more than an overnight delay. The reprint should show clearly the original text of the bill as well as the change created by the amendment (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 270; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 275).
Much of the research for the CCSL recommendations was done during 1969. North Carolina partially implemented this recommendation during the 1969 Session, and it was fully implemented for the 1971 session (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1972). In 1987, the coded style of bill drafting was introduced, where the existing statute is set out, showing how the bill changes the law.[51] This was facilitated by the acquisition of a computerized database of the existing law. When this was introduced, the bill no longer showed changes from earlier versions of the bill itself.
Recommendation #20 has been implemented.
RECOMMENDATION 21. PROVIDE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS
Legislative districts in both houses should be single-member (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 270; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 275).
In the 1971 round of redistricting, there were 35 multi-member districts in the House and 18 multi-member districts in the Senate. In the 1981 round of redistricting, there were 29 multi-member districts in the House and 15 in the Senate. By the 1991 round of redistricting, the total had dropped to 17 multi-member districts in the House and 8 in the Senate. The court imposed interim redistricting plan in 2002 provides for all single-member districts, the North Carolina Supreme Court having found in the case of Stephenson v Bartlett[52] that
"We observe, as amicus alleges, that voters in single-member legislative districts, surrounded by multi-member districts, suffer electoral disadvantage because, at a minimum, they are not permitted to vote for the same number of legislators and may not enjoy the same representational influence or “clout” as voters represented by a slate of legislators within a multi-member district. Conversely, voters in multi-member districts invariably suffer the adverse consequences described by the United States Supreme Court: unwieldy, confusing, and unreasonably lengthy ballots; and minimization of minority voting strength . . . In our view, use of both single-member and multi-member districts within the same redistricting plan violates the Equal Protection Clause of the State Constitution unless it is established that inclusion of multi-member districts advances a compelling state interest."[53]
When the General Assembly enacted redistricting plans in 2003 to apply to the remainder of that decade, all districts were single-member.[54]
Recommendation #21 has been implemented.
RECOMMENDATION 22. ETHICS
(Part A) SPECIAL PROVISIONS. In addition to standard laws governing criminal behavior, there should be special provisions regulating legislative conflicts of interest (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 270; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 275).
A comprehensive Legislative Ethics Act was enacted in 1975.[55] That act, now codified as Article 14 of Chapter 120 of the General Statutes, redefined the legislative bribery statutes, forbade legislators from using confidential information they obtained in the legislative process for financial gain, set standards for members disqualifying themselves from voting, required legislators to file statements of economic interest to inform the public of conflicts of interest, and established a Legislative Ethics Committee with power among other things to prepare ethical principles and guidelines, to propose rules of legislative ethics and conduct and to render written opinions to members on such issues, to investigate violations of the ethics law, and to issue Advisory opinions.[56]
The Legislative Ethics Committee has promulgated a list of ethical principles, guidelines, and opinions, and adopted a procedure for giving advisory opinions. These guidelines include prohibitions on excessive use of state facilities for personal or business purposes, mentioning the legislative office in commercial advertising, and using legislative stationery for campaign purposes (North Carolina, Legislative Ethics Committee 1996).
(Part B) PRACTICE BEFORE REGULATORY AGENCIES. Legislators or their firms should be prohibited from practicing before state regulatory agencies or in matters concerning state agencies for a fee (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 270; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 275).
No legislation has been enacted in this area. House Bill 735 of the 1997 Session[57] proposed that no legislator, business associate, or spouse should represent another person before state agency. It also would have forbidden a former legislator to represent any for-profit entity before any state agency or the General Assembly until the member had been out of the legislature for two years.
(Part C) PROHIBIT DOING BUSINESS WITH THE STATE. There should be a prohibition against legislators or the firms in which they own a major interest doing business with state agencies (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 270; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 275).
No legislation has been enacted in this area. House Bill 735 of the 1997 Session (mentioned above) would have provided that no legislator could participate in any legislative action if that member, a family member, or a business with which the legislator is associated could reasonably be foreseen to obtain a monetary benefit. Some Ethics Opinions have touched in this area. The Legislative Ethics Committee has held it to be unethical for a legislator who is a CPA to have the CPA firm enter into a contract with the State Auditor to do audits of state agencies but another opinion says there is no prohibition on an auctioneer legislator from contracting with a state agency to sell surplus property at auction (North Carolina, Legislative Ethics Committee 1996: 4-5).
Recommendation #22 has been partially implemented.
RECOMMENDATION 23. DISCONTINUE ROTATING LEADERSHIP.
The practice of limiting presiding officers to a single, two-year term in that position weakens the legislature in its capacity to confront other branches and levels of government as a partner of equal stature and diffuses and disrupts the continuity of leadership within the legislative bodies. Although it is extremely difficult to change a practice such as this, because of its profoundly adverse effects on many aspects of legislative performance, it should be discontinued.
The Speaker of the House should not be limited, by tradition, to serving no more than one term (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971a: 270; Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 276).
This tradition ended in the House with the election of Carl Stewart as Speaker in the 1977 and 1979 sessions (Christensen and Bonner 2001). Stewart was a modernizing leader in the legislative branch. Prior to 1977 not only was the Speaker limited to one term, it was expected that the Speaker would leave the House at the end of that term. Stewart's second term occurred perhaps as a ripple effect just after voters in 1997 approved a constitutional amendment allowing the Governor to serve a second term. Liston Ramsey served four terms as Speaker, during the 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1987 Sessions. Earlier, in the Senate John Henley was elected President Pro Tempore for both the 1975 and 1977 Sessions, but this position at that time held little power. Marc Basnight was elected President Pro Tempore in 1993 and in the 2003 Session was serving his sixth consecutive term in that position.
Prior to Stewart's election as Speaker, it was common for members to gather before one session of the legislature to decide who would be Speaker in the next session, thus freezing out freshman in the following session from having any influence in that process.
Fleer discussed this issue at length, noting "… increased professionalism comes through greater continuity and tenure of leadership and membership. The Speaker of the House, President of the Senate, and President Pro Tempore of the Senate have, with some exceptions, served longer terms than before. Committee chairs in numerous instances have held their positions for several terms" (Fleer 1994).
Recommendation #23 has been implemented.
CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
CCSL noted in The Sometime Governments that as of 1971:
"State legislatures would undoubtedly rank low on most Americans' lists of governmental institutions that make a difference in dealing with the issues and problems that bother us. The legislatures are the least visible of those institutions, commanding neither the national attention that the Congress does nor the local attention that the city council or board of supervisors gets. The legislatures meet infrequently – many of them for only a few months every other year. And when they do meet, their deliberations and decisions generally take place behind a pall of public ignorance, and indifference" (Citizens Conference on State Legislatures 1971b: 4).
The North Carolina General Assembly was hit by CCSL with stinging criticism as were most other state legislatures. Initial reaction in North Carolina was hostile, but in the over quarter-century since publication North Carolina has totally implemented 11 of the 23 recommendations, and partially implemented another 10. While other factors certainly have influenced the growing professionalism of the legislative branch, such as a reaction to gubernatorial succession approved in 1977, the growth of the Internet as a means for public access to documents, and a strong two-party system in both houses, it is clear that The Sometime Governments was a catalyst for change.
The criticism of the initial ratings that they were weighted towards states that had already had substantial funding of their legislative staffs and other processes, while true, ignores the obvious goals of the CCSL. By setting out a seemingly objective rating system the study became much more easily understood by the press, academics and legislators, garnering substantially more press coverage. While North Carolina's 47th place ranking clearly stung North Carolina legislators, it is doubtful that an article in the Journal of the American Political Science Association with a set of regression analyses would have attracted either front page coverage in North Carolina's major daily newspapers or any coverage at all in national media like the New York Times. Once the article made the front page of North Carolina's daily newspapers and became the subject of editorials, it got a place on the legislative agenda in North Carolina. Of the 21 recommendations implemented or partially implemented in North Carolina, 17 received action in the 1970s alone.
The only two recommendations not implemented at all concerned the internal details of bills and other legislative documents – the North Carolina General Assembly still neither includes a statement of intent by the sponsor in the body of the bill nor a bill summary prepared by the professional bill drafters. The School of Government of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill still prepares a bill summary that is published the day after introduction, and bill summaries are prepared by professional analysts in the Research Division for all bills heard in committee.
Four of the recommendations that have been partially implemented relate directly or indirectly to the ability of leadership to manage the legislative process, as follows:
1) Reduce the number of committees – while progress has been made in this area, there is a countervailing force to reward leadership supporters with positions as committee chairs, and the fewer the number of committees the harder this is to do.
2) Reduce the number of committee assignments per member. This goal by its nature correlates statistically with the total number of committee and progress in it tracks the reduction in the number of committees.
3) Standardize jurisdiction of committees – Jurisdiction standardized only for the Appropriations, Finance, and Pensions and Retirement Committees. Having strict rules on the jurisdiction of committees would reduce the ability of legislative leadership to steer bills to favorable or unfavorable climates based on the committee chair and committee membership. The Rules committees in both houses are often used for referral of controversial or last minute legislation irrespective of subject matter.
4) Require committee hearings – a requirement of public hearings would also reduce the flexibility of leadership in handling bills.
The other partially implemented recommendations can not be so easily categorized:
1) Publish committee roll calls – this recommendation has been implemented in the House but not the Senate. This difference could be explained by a desire to protect members from controversial votes.
2) Interim committees - The General Assembly has chosen not to have its standing committees meet year round, and has instead adopted a model of interim committees specializing in a specific topic or topics, and with membership including a substantial number of lay members.
3) Require roll call on passage of bills - The part of this recommendation not implemented would require a constitutional majority to pass legislation (61 votes in the House and 26 in the Senate) and there has been no move from leadership to make it harder to pass legislation, although the gubernatorial veto was implemented beginning in 1997.
4) Joint rules - An attempt in 1979 to pass joint rules foundered over one difference in the proposal, but many rules were standardized after that and the short session does operate under joint rules in the adjournment resolution. Since rule changes are often compromises within a house as part of leadership elections or to protect minorities, negotiating joint rules is much more complicated.
5) Ethics – while a Legislative Ethics Act was enacted, there has been no substantive regulation of legislators practicing before State agencies or doing business with the State.
6) Staffing for rank-and-file members – While one of the two staff positions recommended by CCSL is available per member, there are no district offices.
Ferrel Guillory had some suggestions in 1993:
"The North Carolina General Assembly has become what the Citizens Conference sought: a legislature with 20th century structures. But now the 21st century approaches, and the question arises as to whether this state's legislature will be ready for the tasks ahead.
From conversations in recent days with lawmakers, staffers, lobbyists and veteran state-government watchers, I detect a pervasive worry about the General Assembly. Some of this reflects, to be sure, the weariness that sets in at the end of a long session, but it's difficult to discount the genuine concerns of experienced people who have a deep respect or even affection for the legislative branch of government.
It should not surprise anyone that a two-decade-long process of change and reform would begin to fade. Even a strengthened legislature needs, from time to time, a reassessment and a fresh burst of energy. The time, therefore, seems ripe for a North Carolina version of a "citizens conference" on the state's legislature.
The national Citizens Conference was formed in 1965 and organized as a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. It may not be appropriate simply to duplicate it on the state level. And yet, it would take something other than a traditional legislative study commission.
For its recommendations to have a strong chance of being adopted, a working conference on the General Assembly would need the participation of designated lawmakers and staff. But for its recommendations to be regarded as independent and not self-serving, the conference would require substantial participation by an array of thoughtful and influential citizen-representatives.
Though it is not the only option, the mixed composition of the recent government performance audit committee, known as GPAC, suggests a potential model for a legislative performance conference. Whatever its composition, the conference ought to have its own staff and perhaps spin-off working groups to develop independent analyses of specific topics on the agenda.
Here are some, but certainly not all, of the potential agenda items:
Can a part-time "citizens' legislature" be maintained in the nation's 10th largest state, or will the General Assembly continue to evolve, without a guiding plan, into a full-time legislature? What should be done about the scheduling and pace of legislative action so as to curtail the grueling grind that threatens to drive away capable lawmakers? What should be done about compensation to promote diversity in legislative membership?
In addition to the five professional staff divisions that serve both chambers and their committees, should legislators have more personal staffs, in Raleigh and in their districts? Should Democrats and Republicans have partisan staffs?
Is the legislature developing a new accountability problem from a relative dearth of regular, meaningful, major-issue roll-call votes in the House and Senate? With so many key issues lately being negotiated before floor action, wrapped into omnibus budget bills or inserted as special provisions, are there now so few roll-calls on major issues as to make it difficult for voters to assess the records of their representatives?
For democracy to flourish within its borders, North Carolina surely needs a strong, responsive, creative legislature. The state can't afford a legislature that fails to face pervasive worries and drifts back toward 'sometime government'" (Guillory 1993).
While there has been no move to follow Guillory's suggestion of a North Carolina Citizens Conference to evaluate the General Assembly, the in depth look in this thesis at the progress since 1971 documents the substantial reforms that have taken place. The North Carolina General Assembly has come a long way along the path of modernization, clearly propelled by the publication of The Sometime Governments (Fleer 1994). Change can be adaptation resulting from external pressure. (Rosenthal 1996) Whether or not the final few recommendations are followed, the path towards a professional legislature is unlikely to be reversed.
Much of the focus of The Sometime Governments was on the ability of the public and the media to follow legislative actions. At the time of publication of that book, most internal publication of documents in the legislatures consisted of notebooks and reports housed in a legislative library. Now with the Internet becoming the major research tool, the General Assembly is challenged to publish new materials online in a manner that the media, interest groups, academic researchers and the press can access and analyze. The General Assembly's main web page at contains the ability to look up statutes, texts of bills whether enacted or not, bill histories back several sessions, House and Senate rules, maps of districts, links to hear live audio of sessions, numerous memoranda and reports on the budget and other major legislation, calendars for floor action, calendars of interim meetings, items suitable for school research projects, and links to send e-mail to legislators and staff. Public access to these items go far beyond what now appear to be relatively modest recommendations by the CCSL.
If Guillory's suggestions for a North Carolina working conference on the legislative branch are followed, the next generation of researchers, decision makers and implementers can look back at the 1971 recommendations as well as examine the legislative branch in the 21st Century. With the introduction of the veto in 1997, an examination of the formal role of the Governor in the legislative process can also be considered.
While a future study certainly could examine those items from the CCSL study that have been partially implemented or not implemented at all, other items such as electronic access to legislative records, the relationship of the executive and legislative branches, the role of leadership staff and party caucuses in the legislative process, lobbying reform,[58] and campaign finance laws all are relevant to the General Assembly of the 21st Century.
APPENDIX I.
COMMITTEE JURISDICTION IN HOUSE AND SENATE RULES
House Rule 38, 2003 Regular Session (North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 2003.)
RULE 38. Reports on Appropriation and Revenue Bills. – (a) All standing committees, other than the Standing Committee on Appropriations, when favorably reporting any bill or resolution which:
(1) Carries an appropriation from the State; or
(2) Requires or will require in the future substantial additional State monies from the General Fund or Highway Fund to implement its provisions shall indicate same in the report, and said bill or resolution shall be referred to the Standing Committee on Appropriations for a further report before being acted upon by the House.
(b) All standing committees, other than the Standing Committee on Finance, when favorably reporting any bill which in any way or manner raises revenue, reduces revenue, levies a tax, authorizes the levying of a tax, an assessment, or a fee, or authorizes the issue of bonds or notes, whether public, public-local, or private, shall indicate same in the report, and said bill shall be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance for a further report before being acted upon by the House.
(c) Action on Amendment Before Re-Referral. ( If any standing committee recommends adoption of an amendment or committee substitute of a bill which, under the rules of the House, must be referred to the Standing Committees on Appropriations or the Standing Committee on Finance, the amendment or committee substitute shall be considered and, if adopted, the amendment or substitute engrossed before the bill is re-referred.
Senate Rule 42, 2003 Session (North Carolina General Assembly, Senate. 2003.)
RULE 42. Reference of appropriation and finance bills. – (a) All bills introduced in the Senate providing for appropriations from the State, or any subdivision thereof, shall, before being considered by the Senate, be referred to the Committee on Appropriations/Base Budget and bills referred to other committees carrying any such provisions shall be reported to the Senate as being bills to be referred to the Appropriations/Base Budget Committee before proper action may be taken by the Senate.
(b) All bills introduced in the Senate providing for bond issues, imposing or raising fees or other revenues payable to the State, its agencies, its licensing boards, or any of its subdivisions, levying taxes, or in any manner affecting the taxing power of the State or any subdivision thereof, shall, before being considered by the Senate, be referred to the Committee on Finance, and bills referred to other committees carrying any such provisions shall be reported to the Senate as being bills to be referred to the Committee on Finance before proper action may be taken by the Senate.
(c) This rule shall not apply to bills imposing civil penalties, criminal fines, forfeitures, or penalties for infractions.
House Rule 36.2(a), 2003 Regular Session (North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 2003.)
RULE 36.2. Actuarial Notes. – (a) Every bill or resolution proposing any change in the law relative to any:
(1) State, municipal, or other retirement system funded in whole or in part out of public funds; or
(2) Program of hospital, medical, disability, or related benefits provided for teachers and State employees, funded in whole or in part by State funds shall have attached to it at the time of its consideration by any standing committee or permanent subcommittee a brief explanatory statement or note which shall include a reliable estimate of the financial and actuarial effect of the proposed change to that retirement or pension system. The actuarial note shall be attached to the jacket of each proposed bill or resolution which is reported favorably by any standing committee or any permanent subcommittee, shall be separate therefrom, and shall be clearly designated as an actuarial note. A bill described in subdivision (a)(1) of this rule shall be referred to the Committee on Pensions and Retirement upon its introduction.
Senate Rule 42.2(a), 2003 Session (North Carolina General Assembly, Senate. 2003.)
RULE 42.2. Actuarial notes. – (a) Every bill or resolution proposing any change in the law relative to any:
(1) State, municipal, or other retirement system funded in whole or in part out of public funds; or
(2) Program of hospital, medical, disability, or related benefits provided for teachers and State employees, funded in whole or in part by State funds,
shall have attached to it at the time of its consideration by any committee a brief explanatory statement or note which shall include a reliable estimate of the financial and actuarial effect of the proposed change. The actuarial note shall be attached to the jacket of each proposed bill or resolution which is reported favorably by any committee and shall be clearly designated as an actuarial note. Upon its introduction, a bill or resolution described in subdivision (a)(1) of this rule shall be referred to the Committee on Pensions and Retirement and Aging.
APPENDIX II.
MEETING NOTICE AS FOUND IN HOUSE AND SENATE RULES
House Rules 29 and 29.1, 2003 Regular Session (North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 2003.)
RULE 29. Notice of Standing Committee and Permanent Subcommittee Meetings and Hearings. – Public notice of all standing committee and permanent subcommittee meetings shall be given in the House. The chair of the standing committee or permanent subcommittee shall notify or cause to be notified the sponsor of each bill which is set for hearing or consideration before the standing committee or permanent subcommittee as to the date, time, and place of that meeting.
RULE 29.1. Public Hearings. – (a) Requests for a public hearing shall be made in writing to the chair of the standing committee and, if applicable, the chair of the permanent subcommittee to which the bill has been referred. The chair of the standing committee may schedule a public hearing by the standing committee as a whole after the adjournment of a regular daily House session. The chair of the permanent subcommittee may schedule a public hearing before the permanent subcommittee at its regularly scheduled hour. Denial of a request made by a House member may be appealed to the Speaker.
Notice shall be given not less than five calendar days prior to public hearings. These notices shall be issued as information for the press and shall be posted in the places designated by the Principal Clerk.
(b) Persons desiring to appear and be heard at a public hearing shall submit their requests to the chair of the standing committee or permanent subcommittee. The standing committee or permanent subcommittee chair may designate one or more members to arrange the order of appearance of interested parties. A brief written statement of testimony may be submitted without oral presentation and shall be incorporated into the minutes of the public hearing.
Senate Rules 33 and 74, 2003 Regular Session (North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 2003.)
RULE 33. Notice of committee meetings. – (a) Public notice of all committee meetings shall be given in the Senate. The required notice may be waived as to any meeting by the attendance at that meeting of all of the members of the committee or by personal waiver.
(b) The chair of the committee shall notify or cause to be notified the sponsor of each bill which is set for hearing or consideration before the committee as to the date, time, and place of that meeting.
(c) The published calendar shall reflect those committee notices received in the Office of the Principal Clerk prior to 3:30 P.M. or as announced in the daily session.
RULE 74. Public hearings. – Any Senator may request in writing a public hearing by the committee considering the bill on a public bill. Requests may be granted at the discretion of the chair. Notice shall be given not less than five calendar days prior to public hearings. Such notices shall be issued as information for the press, and the information shall be posted in the places designated by the Principal Clerk.
APPENDIX III.
OPEN MEETINGS IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE RULES AND GENERAL STATUTES
House Rules 28(b) and 28(c) and House Rule 28.1, 2003 Regular Session (North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 2003.)
(b) Subject to the provisions of subsection (c) of this rule, standing committees and permanent subcommittees thereof shall permit other members of the General Assembly, the press, and the general public to attend all sessions of said standing committees or permanent subcommittees.
(c) The Chair or other presiding officer shall have general direction of the meeting place of the standing committee or permanent subcommittee, and, in case of any disturbance or disorderly conduct therein, or if the peace, good order, and proper conduct of the legislative business is hindered by any person or persons, the Chair or presiding officer shall have power to exclude from the session any individual or individuals so hindering the legislative business.
RULE 28.1. Ethics Committee Investigations Into Violations of the Open Meetings Law. – (a) On its own motion, or in response to signed and sworn complaint of any individual filed with the Standing Committee on Ethics, the Committee shall inquire into any alleged violation by members of the House of the Open Meetings Law (Article 33C of Chapter 143 of the General Statutes), as the same may be amended in the future.
(b) If, after such preliminary investigation as it may make, the Committee determines to proceed with an inquiry into the conduct of any individual, the Committee shall notify the individual as to the fact of the inquiry and the charges against the individual and shall schedule one or more hearings on the matter. The individual shall have the right to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and be represented by counsel at any hearings.
(c) After the Committee has concluded its inquiries into the alleged violations, the Committee shall dispose of the matter by taking one of the following actions:
(1) Dismiss the complaint and take no further action.
(2) Issue a private letter of reprimand to the legislator, if the legislator unintentionally violated the provisions of the Open Meetings Law.
(3) Issue a public letter of reprimand if the violation of the Open Meetings Law was intentional or if the legislator has previously received a private letter of reprimand. The Chair of the Committee on Ethics shall have the public letter of reprimand spread on the pages of the House Journal.
(4) Refer the matter to the House for appropriate action.
Senate Rule 36, 2003 Regular Session (North Carolina General Assembly, Senate. 2003.)
RULE 36. Standing committee and standing subcommittee meetings. – No committee or subcommittee shall hold a secret meeting. All meetings of committees and subcommittees shall be open to the public, except as provided in G.S. 143-318.14A(e). In no event shall final action be taken by any committee or subcommittee except in open session.
§ 143-318.14A. (2003) Legislative commissions, committees, and standing subcommittees.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (e) below, all official meetings of commissions, committees, and standing subcommittees of the General Assembly (including, without limitation, joint committees and study committees), shall be held in open session.
. . . . .
(b) Reasonable public notice of all meetings of commissions, committees, and standing subcommittees of the General Assembly shall be given. For purposes of this subsection, "reasonable public notice" includes, but is not limited to:
(1) Notice given openly at a session of the Senate or of the House; or
(2) Notice mailed or sent by electronic mail to those who have requested notice, and to the Legislative Services Office, which shall post the notice on the General Assembly web site.
G.S. 143-318.12 shall not apply to meetings of commissions, committees, and standing subcommittees of the General Assembly.
(c) A commission, committee, or standing subcommittee of the General Assembly may take final action only in an open meeting.
(d) A violation of this section by members of the General Assembly shall be punishable as prescribed by the rules of the House or the Senate.
(e) The following sections shall apply to meetings of commissions, committees, and standing subcommittees of the General Assembly: G.S. 143-318.10(e) and G.S. 143-318.11, G.S. 143-318.13 and G.S. 143-318.14, G.S. 143-318.16 through G.S. 143-318.17.
§ 143-318.11. (2003) Closed sessions.
(a) Permitted Purposes. – It is the policy of this State that closed sessions shall be held only when required to permit a public body to act in the public interest as permitted in this section. A public body may hold a closed session and exclude the public only when a closed session is required:
(1) To prevent the disclosure of information that is privileged or confidential pursuant to the law of this State or of the United States, or not considered a public record within the meaning of Chapter 132 of the General Statutes.
(2) To prevent the premature disclosure of an honorary degree, scholarship, prize, or similar award.
(3) To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the public body, which privilege is hereby acknowledged. General policy matters may not be discussed in a closed session and nothing herein shall be construed to permit a public body to close a meeting that otherwise would be open merely because an attorney employed or retained by the public body is a participant. The public body may consider and give instructions to an attorney concerning the handling or settlement of a claim, judicial action, mediation, arbitration, or administrative procedure. If the public body has approved or considered a settlement, other than a malpractice settlement by or on behalf of a hospital, in closed session, the terms of that settlement shall be reported to the public body and entered into its minutes as soon as possible within a reasonable time after the settlement is concluded.
(4) To discuss matters relating to the location or expansion of industries or other businesses in the area served by the public body, including agreement on a tentative list of economic development incentives that may be offered by the public body in negotiations. The action approving the signing of an economic development contract or commitment, or the action authorizing the payment of economic development expenditures, shall be taken in an open session.
(5) To establish, or to instruct the public body's staff or negotiating agents concerning the position to be taken by or on behalf of the public body in negotiating (i) the price and other material terms of a contract or proposed contract for the acquisition of real property by purchase, option, exchange, or lease; or (ii) the amount of compensation and other material terms of an employment contract or proposed employment contract.
(6) To consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, fitness, conditions of appointment, or conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee; or to hear or investigate a complaint, charge, or grievance by or against an individual public officer or employee. General personnel policy issues may not be considered in a closed session. A public body may not consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, fitness, appointment, or removal of a member of the public body or another body and may not consider or fill a vacancy among its own membership except in an open meeting. Final action making an appointment or discharge or removal by a public body having final authority for the appointment or discharge or removal shall be taken in an open meeting.
(7) To plan, conduct, or hear reports concerning investigations of alleged criminal misconduct.
(8) To formulate plans by a local board of education relating to emergency response to incidents of school violence.
(9) To discuss and take action regarding plans to protect public safety as it relates to existing or potential terrorist activity and to receive briefings by staff members, legal counsel, or law enforcement or emergency service officials concerning actions taken or to be taken to respond to such activity.
(b) Repealed by Session Laws 1991, c. 694, s. 4.
(c) Calling a Closed Session. – A public body may hold a closed session only upon a motion duly made and adopted at an open meeting. Every motion to close a meeting shall cite one or more of the permissible purposes listed in subsection (a) of this section. A motion based on subdivision (a)(1) of this section shall also state the name or citation of the law that renders the information to be discussed privileged or confidential. A motion based on subdivision (a)(3) of this section shall identify the parties in each existing lawsuit concerning which the public body expects to receive advice during the closed session.
APPENDIX IV.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
House Rule 29.1, 2003 Regular Session (North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 2003.)
RULE 29.1. Public Hearings. – (a) Requests for a public hearing shall be made in writing to the chair of the standing committee and, if applicable, the chair of the permanent subcommittee to which the bill has been referred. The chair of the standing committee may schedule a public hearing by the standing committee as a whole after the adjournment of a regular daily House session. The chair of the permanent subcommittee may schedule a public hearing before the permanent subcommittee at its regularly scheduled hour. Denial of a request made by a House member may be appealed to the Speaker.
Notice shall be given not less than five calendar days prior to public hearings. These notices shall be issued as information for the press and shall be posted in the places designated by the Principal Clerk.
(b) Persons desiring to appear and be heard at a public hearing shall submit their requests to the chair of the standing committee or permanent subcommittee. The standing committee or permanent subcommittee chair may designate one or more members to arrange the order of appearance of interested parties. A brief written statement of testimony may be submitted without oral presentation and shall be incorporated into the minutes of the public hearing.
Senate Rule 74, 2003 Regular Session (North Carolina General Assembly, Senate. 2003.)
RULE 74. Public hearings. – Any Senator may request in writing a public hearing by the committee considering the bill on a public bill. Requests may be granted at the discretion of the chair. Notice shall be given not less than five calendar days prior to public hearings. Such notices shall be issued as information for the press, and the information shall be posted in the places designated by the Principal Clerk.
APPENDIX V.
HOUSE AND SENATE RULES ON COMMITTEE MINUTES
House Rule 29.2, 2003 Regular Session (North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 2003.)
RULE 29.2. Minutes to Legislative Library. – The chair of a standing committee or a permanent subcommittee shall ensure that written minutes are compiled for each of the body's meetings. The minutes shall indicate the members present and the actions taken at the meeting. Not later than 20 days after the adjournment of each session of the General Assembly, the chair shall deliver the minutes to the Legislative Library. The Speaker of the House may grant a reasonable extension of time for filing said minutes upon written application of the chair.
Senate Rule 36.1, 2003 Regular Session (North Carolina General Assembly, Senate. 2003.)
RULE 36.1. Committee minutes to Legislative Library. – The chair of a committee shall ensure that written minutes are compiled for each of the committee's meetings. The minutes shall indicate the number of members present and the actions taken by the committee at the meeting. Not later than 30 days after the adjournment of each session of the General Assembly, the chair shall deliver the minutes to the Legislative Library. The President Pro Tempore of the Senate may grant a reasonable extension of time for filing said minutes upon application of the committee chair.
APPENDIX VI.
ROLL CALL VOTES IN COMMITTEE
House Rule 28(d), 2003 Regular Session (North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 2003.)
(d) Procedure in the standing committees and permanent subcommittees shall be governed by the rules of the House, so far as the same may be applicable to such procedure. Before a question is put, any member may call for the ayes and noes. If the call is sustained by one-fifth of the members present, the question shall be decided by the ayes and noes upon a roll call vote. All roll call votes shall be taken alphabetically and shall be subject to Rule 21(c).
Senate Rule 35, 2003 Regular Session (North Carolina General Assembly, Senate. 2003.)
RULE 35. Roll call vote in committee. – No roll call vote may be taken in any committee. The committee chair may vote in committee.
APPENDIX VII.
FISCAL NOTES
Senate Rule 42.1, 2003 Regular Session (North Carolina General Assembly, Senate. 2003.)
RULE 42.1. Fiscal notes. – (a) A Chair of the Appropriations/Base Budget Committee, or of the Finance Committee, or of the Rules and Operations of the Senate Committee, or of the Ways and Means Committee, upon the floor of the Senate, may request that a fiscal analysis be made of a bill, resolution, or an amendment to a bill or resolution which is in the possession of the Senate and that a fiscal note be attached to the measure, when in the opinion of that Chair the fiscal effects of that measure are not apparent from the language of the measure. No bill, resolution, or amendment for which a fiscal note has been requested may be considered for passage prior to the fiscal note's being attached to it.
(b) The fiscal note shall be filed and attached to the bill, resolution, or amendment within two legislative days of the request. If it is impossible to prepare a fiscal note within two legislative days, the Director of Fiscal Research shall, in writing, so advise the Presiding Officer, the Principal Clerk, and the member introducing or proposing the measure and shall indicate the time when the fiscal note will be ready.
(c) The fiscal note shall be prepared by the Fiscal Research Division on a form approved by the Chair of the Rules and Operations of the Senate Committee as to content and form and signed by the staff member or members preparing it. If no estimate in dollars is possible, the fiscal note shall indicate the reasons that no estimate is provided. The fiscal note shall not comment on the merit but may identify technical problems. The Fiscal Research Division shall make the fiscal note available to the membership of the Senate.
(d) A sponsor of a bill, resolution, or amendment may deliver a copy of that member's bill, resolution, or amendment to the Fiscal Research Division for the preparation of a fiscal note. The sponsor shall attach the fiscal note to the bill when the sponsor files the bill or resolution or to the amendment when the sponsor moves its adoption.
(e) The sponsor of a bill, resolution, or amendment to which a fiscal note is attached who objects to the estimates and information provided may reduce to writing the objections. These objections shall be appended to the fiscal note attached to the bill, resolution, or amendment and to the copies of the fiscal note available to the membership.
(f) Subsection (a) of this rule shall not apply to the Current Operations Appropriations Bill or the Capital Improvement Appropriations Bill. This rule shall not apply to a bill, resolution, or amendment requiring an actuarial note under these rules.
House Rule 36.1, 2003 Regular Session (North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 2003.)
RULE 36.1. Fiscal Notes. – (a) The Chair or Cochair of the Appropriations Committee, of the Finance Committee, or of the Standing Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House, upon the floor of the House, may request that a fiscal analysis be made of a bill, resolution, or an amendment to a bill or resolution which is in the possession of the House and that a fiscal note be attached to the measure, which request shall be allowed when, in the opinion of the Speaker, the fiscal effects of that measure are not apparent from the language of the measure.
(b) The fiscal note shall be filed and attached to the bill or amendment within two legislative days of the request. If it is impossible to prepare a fiscal note within two legislative days, the Director of Fiscal Research shall, in writing, so advise the Speaker, the Principal Clerk, and the member introducing or proposing the measure and shall indicate the time when the fiscal note will be ready.
(c) The fiscal note shall be prepared by the Fiscal Research Division on a form approved by the Standing Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House as to content and form and signed by the staff member or members preparing it. If no estimate in dollars is possible, the fiscal note shall indicate the reasons that no estimate is provided. The fiscal note shall not comment on the merit but may identify technical problems. The Fiscal Research Division shall make the fiscal note available to the membership of the House.
(d) A sponsor of a bill or amendment may deliver a copy of the bill or amendment to the Fiscal Research Division for the preparation of a fiscal note. The sponsor shall attach the fiscal note to the bill when filed or to the amendment when its adoption is moved.
(e) The sponsor of a bill or amendment to which a fiscal note is attached who objects to the estimates and information provided may reduce to writing the objections. These objections shall be appended to the fiscal note attached to the bill or amendment and to the copies of the fiscal note available to the membership.
(f) Subsection (a) of this rule shall not apply to the Current Operations Appropriations Bill or the Capital Improvement Appropriations Bill. This rule shall not apply to a bill or amendment requiring an actuarial note under these rules.
APPENDIX VIII.
STATUTES AND HOUSE AND SENATE RULES ON ROLL CALL VOTES ON PASSAGE OF BILLS
"§ 120-11.2. (2003) Installation and use of electronic voting apparatus.
(a) The General Assembly of North Carolina shall, in accordance with rules adopted by each of the respective bodies, vote by use of electronic voting apparatus. The electronic voting apparatus shall be purchased by and installed under the direct supervision of the Legislative Services Commission as soon as is practicable, but in any event the apparatus shall be installed and fully operational as soon as possible after January 1, 1975.
(b) The rules of the House of Representatives and the Senate shall be amended so as to provide for the installation and use of electronic voting apparatus.
House Rule 20, 2003 Regular Session (North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 2003)
RULE 20. Use of Electronic Voting System. – (a) Votes on the following questions shall be taken on the electronic voting system, and the ayes and noes shall be recorded on the Journal:
(1) The passage as required by Article II, Section 23 of the North Carolina Constitution on second and third readings of any bill:
a. Raising money on the credit of the State,
b. Pledging the faith of the State for the payment of a debt,
c. Imposing a State tax, or
d. Authorizing a county, municipality, or other local governmental unit to
1. Raise money on its credit,
2. Pledge its faith for the payment of a debt, or
3. Impose a local tax.
(2) All measures affecting a fee imposed by the State or any subdivision thereof.
(3) All questions on which a call for the ayes and noes under Rule 24(a) and Article II, Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution has been sustained.
(4) Both second and third readings of bills proposing amendment of the North Carolina Constitution or ratifying resolutions amending the United States Constitution.
(5) The passage of a bill notwithstanding the Governor's veto thereof pursuant to Article II, Section 22 of the North Carolina Constitution.
(b) Votes on the following questions shall be taken on the electronic voting system:
(1) Second reading of all public bills, all amendments to public bills offered after second reading, third reading if a public bill was amended after second reading or if the reading occurs on a day or days following the second reading, all conference reports on public bills, all motions to lay public bills on the table, and all motions to postpone public bills indefinitely.
(2) Upon a call for division.
(3) Any other question upon direction of the Speaker or upon motion of any member supported by one-fifth of the members present.
(c) When the electronic voting system is used, 15 seconds shall be allowed for voting on the question before the House, unless the Chair shall direct otherwise. The system shall be set to close automatically when that time has expired. Once the system is locked, the vote shall be recorded and printed.
(d) The voting station at each member's desk in the Chamber shall be used only by the member to which the station is assigned. Under no circumstances shall any other person vote at a member's station. It is a breach of the ethical obligation of a member either to request that another person vote at the requesting member's station or to vote at another member's station. The Speaker shall enforce this rule without exception.
(e) When the electronic voting system is used, the Speaker shall state the question and shall then state substantially the following: "All in favor vote 'aye'; all opposed vote 'no'; the Clerk will open the vote." In order to have the vote recorded, the member must vote by the electronic voting system within the time allowed for that vote, unless the voting station assigned to a member is malfunctioning. The Speaker shall enforce this rule without exception. After the allotted time for voting has elapsed, the Speaker shall say: "The Clerk will now lock the machine and record the vote." After the machine is locked and the vote recorded, the Speaker shall announce the vote and declare the result.
(f) One copy of the machine printout of the vote record of all votes taken on the electronic voting system shall be filed in the office of the Principal Clerk, and two copies shall be filed in the Legislative Library where the copies shall be open to public inspection. A legible copy of the bill, amendment, or motion on which the vote was taken shall be filed with the printout of the vote in the Legislative Library.
(g) When the Speaker ascertains that the electronic voting system is inoperative before a vote is taken or while a vote is being taken on the electronic voting system, the Speaker shall announce that fact to the House, and any partial electronic voting system voting record shall be voided. In such a case, if the North Carolina Constitution or the Rules of the House require a call of the ayes and noes, the Clerk shall call the roll of the House, and the ayes and noes shall be taken manually and shall be recorded on the Journal. All roll call votes shall be taken alphabetically. If, after a vote is taken on the electronic voting system, it is discovered that a malfunction caused an error in the electronic voting system printout, the Speaker shall direct the Reading Clerk and the Principal Clerk to verify and correct the printout record and so advise the House.
(h) For the purpose of identifying motions on which the vote is taken on the electronic voting system, the motions are coded as follows:
(1) To adjourn.
(2) To lay on the table.
(3) Previous question.
(4) To recess.
(5) To postpone indefinitely.
(6) To reconsider.
(7) To postpone to a day certain.
(8) To re-refer.
(9) To amend an amendment.
(10) To amend.
(11) To concur or not concur.
(12) Miscellaneous.
Senate Rule 25, 2003 Regular Session (North Carolina General Assembly, Senate. 2003)
RULE 25. Use of electronic voting system. – (a) Votes on the following questions shall be taken on the electronic voting system, and the ayes and noes shall be recorded on the Journal:
(1) All questions on which the Constitution of North Carolina requires that the ayes and noes be taken and recorded on the Journal;
(2) All questions on which a call for the ayes and noes under Rule 26(b) has been sustained;
(3) Second and third readings of bills proposing amendment of the Constitution of North Carolina; and
(4) The vote on approval of a bill that was vetoed by the Governor.
(b) Votes on the following questions shall be taken on the electronic voting system, and the resulting totals shall be recorded on the Journal:
(1) Second reading of all public bills, all amendments to public bills offered after second reading, third reading if a public bill was amended after second reading, and all conference reports on public bills.
(2) Any other question upon direction of the Presiding Officer or upon motion of any Senator supported by one-fifth of the Senators present.
(c) When the electronic voting system is used, the Presiding Officer shall fix and announce the time, not to exceed one minute, which shall be allowed for voting on the question before the Senate. The system shall be set to lock automatically and to record the vote when that time has expired. Once the system has locked and recorded a vote, the vote shall be printed by the system.
(d) The voting station at each Senator's desk in the Chamber shall be used only by the Senator to whom the station is assigned. Under no circumstances shall any other person vote at a Senator's station. It is a breach of the ethical obligation of a Senator either to request that another vote at the requesting Senator's station or to vote at another Senator's station. The Presiding Officer shall enforce this rule without exception.
(e) When the electronic voting system is used, the Presiding Officer shall state the question and shall then state substantially the following: "All in favor vote 'aye'; all opposed vote 'no'; _____ seconds will be allowed for voting on this question; the Clerk will record the vote." After the machine locks and records the vote, the Presiding Officer shall announce the vote and declare the result.
(f) One copy of the machine printout of the vote record shall be filed in the office of the Principal Clerk, and one copy shall be filed in the Legislative Library where it shall be open to public inspection.
(g) When the Presiding Officer ascertains that the electronic voting system is inoperative before a vote is taken or while a vote is being taken on the electronic system, the Presiding Officer shall announce that fact to the Senate, and any partial electronic system voting record shall be voided. In such a case, if the Constitution of North Carolina or the Rules of the Senate require a call of the ayes and noes, the Clerk shall call the roll of the Senate, and the ayes and noes shall be taken manually and shall be recorded on the Journal. All other votes shall be taken as prescribed in Senate Rule 26. If, after a vote is taken on the electronic system, it is discovered that a malfunction caused an error in the electronic system printout, the Presiding Officer shall direct the Reading Clerk and the Principal Clerk to verify and correct the printout record and so advise the Senate.
(h) For the purpose of identifying motions on which the vote is taken on the electronic system (the identification codes having no relation to the order of precedence of motions), the motions are coded as follows:
(1) To lay on the table.
(2) For the previous question.
(3) To postpone indefinitely.
(4) To postpone to a day certain.
(5) To refer to a committee.
(6) To reconsider.
(7) To adopt.
(8) To concur.
(9) To take from the table.
(10) Miscellaneous.
APPENDIX IX.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING STUDY OF JOINT RULES
Resolution 78, 1977 Session, North Carolina General Assembly
A JOINT RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL INTERIM JOINT COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE RULES OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
Be is resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring:
Section 1. There is established the Special Interim Joint Committee to study the Rules of the General Assembly of North Carolina.
Section 2. The committee members shall be appointed as follows: three members of the House of Representatives by the Speaker of the House, and three members of the Senate by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.
Section 3. The committee shall study the current issues related to changing the rules of either House of the General Assembly, including the possibility of beginning a system with some Joint Rules; and the committee shall propose drafts of new rules if appropriate.
Section 4. The committee shall function as a Joint Committee of the General Assembly and shall have authority under the appropriate provisions of Article 5 and Article 5A of G.S. Chapter 120.
Section 5. The committee shall report to the 1979 General Assembly.
Section 6. This resolution shall become effective on July 1, 1977.
REFERENCES
Barnes, Henson. 1993. Work In Progress: The North Carolina Legislature. [Raleigh]: North Carolina Legislature.
Childs, Jack, "Assembly's Low Ranking Irks N.C. Legislatures", News and Observer, 4 February 1971.
Christensen, Rob and Lynne Bonner, "Constituents Came First for Ramsey", News and Observer, 4 September 2001.
Citizens Conference on State Legislatures. 1971a. State Legislatures: An Evaluation of Their Effectiveness. New York: Praeger.
__________ (written by John Burns). 1971b: 1973. The Sometime Governments A Critical Study of the 50 American Legislatures. New York: Bantam Books.
__________. 1972. Legislatures Move to Improve Their Effectiveness. Research Memorandum 15. New York: Citizens Conference on State Legislatures.
Coble, Ran. 1987. "Three Key Trends Shaping the General Assembly Since 1971." North Carolina Insight, June, 35-39.
Duke University Assembly on State Legislatures. 1967. State Legislatures in American Politics. Durham: Duke University.
Ehrenhalt, Alan. 2004. "In Search of the Ideal Legislature." Governing, September, 4-6.
Fleer, Jack. D, North Carolina Government & Politics. 1994. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Guillory, Ferrel, "Worries Arise over Future Legislative Vitality", News & Observer, 9 July 1993, Final, A12.
Hamilton, John A, "Back from the Dead," New York Times, 17 January 1972, 31.
Heard, Alexander. 1966. State Legislatures in American Politics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Jablow, Paul, "U.S. Citizens Group Rates N.C. Assembly A Poor 47th", Charlotte Observer, 4 October 1971.
Herzberg, Donald G. and Alan Rosenthal. 1971. Strengthening the States: Essays on Legislative Reform. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.
Hoyle, David. 2002. "Session Limits. We Need this Vital Reform to Save our Citizen Legislature". North Carolina Magazine. (January).
News & Observer, "Legislature Needs More Continuity", Raleigh, 21 October 1971.
New York Times, "California is Rated Best in Wide Study of 50 Legislatures," 4 February 1971, 1, 70.
North Carolina, Governor. 1975-77, 1979-81, 1981-82, 1983-84. "The Budget".
____________ Governor. 1989-91, 1991-93, 1997-99, 2001-2003. "The North Carolina State Budget".
____________ House of Representatives. 1979, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003. "Rules – Directory".
____________ House of Representatives. 1955, 1957, 1959, 1961, 1963, 1965, 1967, 1969, 1971, 1973, 1975. "Rules – Directory of Members Committees and House Officers".
____________ Legislative Ethics Committee. 1996. "Legislative Ethics: Ethical Principles and Guidelines and Opinions of the Legislative Ethics Committee 1975-1996".
___________ Legislative Research Commission. 1967. "Report No. 1. Report on the General Assembly of North Carolina".
____________ Legislative Library. 2004. Legislative Statistics 1965-2004
____________ Research Division. 2004. "2003-2004 Legislative Commissions, Non-Standing Committees, Interim Studies"
____________ Special Interim Joint Committee. 1979. "Rules of the General Assembly"
____________ Senate. 1969, 1971, 1973, 1975, 1979, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003. "Rules-Directory".
____________ Senate. 1957, 1959, 1961, 1963, 1965, 1967. "Members, Rules, Committees, Directory".
____________ Senate and House of Representatives. 1977. "Rules-Directory".
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Tapping Officials' Secrets. 2001. Arlington, VA: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
Rosenthal, Alan. 2004. Heavy Lifting: The Job of the American Legislature. Washington: CQ Press.
____________ 1996. "State Legislative Development: Observations from Three Perspectives" Legislative Studies Quarterly, Vol. XXI No. 2 (May) 169.
_____________ 1981. Legislative Life: People, process and Performance in the States. New York: Harper & Row.
Sanford, Terry. 1967. Storm Over The States. New York: McGraw Hill.
Stuart, Clay. 1975. North Carolina Atlas: Portrait of a Changing Southern State. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Tarleton, Larry, "State Government Must Reform in Order to Survive", Charlotte Observer, October 17, 1971.
Trippett, Frank. 1967. The States: United They Fell. Cleveland: World Publishing Company.
Wissel, Peter, Robert O'Connor, and Michael King. 1976. The Hunting of the Legislative Snark: Information Searches and Reforms in U.S. State Legislatures" Legislative Studies Quarterly Vol. 1, No 2 (May): 251-267.
-----------------------
[1] The author of this thesis is currently Director of Bill Drafting for the North Carolina General Assembly, having been hired in 1977 as one of the first four staff members in the then newly-established Bill Drafting Division. During the 1971 Session, he was an unpaid lobbyist for Common Cause.
[2] The two respondents were House Speaker Phil Godwin and Senate Minority Leader Harry Bagnal.
[3] E-mail from Ilona Einowski, Assistant Director, User Services, UC Data Archive & Technical Assistance, University of California, Berkeley, (September 2, 2004) E-mail from Terry Dean, Librarian, Institute of Governmental Studies Library, University of California Berkeley, (February 19, 2002).
[4] E-mail from Professor Thad Beyle, University of North Carolina (September 19, 2004). Beyle worked for Terry Sanford from 1965 to 1967.
[5] Information about the American Assembly can be found at: .
[6] North Carolina in 1963 had become the first state to construct a building specifically for the sole use of the legislative branch.
[7] State Legislatures: An Evaluation of their Effectiveness, The Citizens Conference on State Legislatures, copyright 1971 by the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures. Reproduced with permission of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc., Westport, CT.
[8] 1969 Session Laws and Resolutions, North Carolina, Resolution 100 (June 30, 1969).
[9] North Carolina Constitution, (1970) Article II, Section 11(2).
[10] 1971 Session Laws and Resolutions, North Carolina, Resolution 112 (July 20, 1971).
[11] 1973 Session Laws and Resolutions, North Carolina, Resolution 116 (May 24, 1973).
[12] 1975 Session Laws and Resolutions, North Carolina, Resolution 121 (June 26, 1975).
[13] North Carolina General Assembly. Senate. Senate Bill 3, 2nd Edition, 2003 Regular Session.
[14] North Carolina General Assembly, Senate. 1971, 1973, 1975, 1979, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003. "Rules-Directory"; North Carolina General Assembly, Senate and House of Representatives. 1977. "Rules-Directory".
[15] North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 1979, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003. "Rules – Directory"; North Carolina General Assembly , House of Representatives. 1971, 1973, 1975; "Rules – Directory of Members Committees and House Officers"; North Carolina General Assembly, Senate and House of Representatives. 1977. "Rules-Directory".
[16] In some sessions, there have been a pair of budget committees, such as Appropriations and Base Budget, but these were really the same committee using different names at different points during the session and I have counted each pair as one committee.
[17] North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives., 1987, 1989, 2001, 2003. "Rules – Directory"; North Carolina General Assembly , House of Representatives. 1971. "Rules – Directory of Members Committees and House Officers"
[18] There were actually 22 Senate committees, six appropriations subcommittees and one other subcommittee. North Carolina General Assembly. Senate. 1993. "Rules-Directory".
[19] North Carolina General Assembly, Senate. 1971, 1973, 1975, 1987, 1989, 2001, 2003. "Rules-Directory"; North Carolina General Assembly, House of Representatives. 1987, 1989, 2001, 2003. "Rules – Directory"; North Carolina General Assembly , House of Representatives. 1971, 1973, 1975. "Rules – Directory of Members Committees and House Officers"; North Carolina General Assembly, Senate and House of Representatives. 1977. "Rules-Directory". Membership on subcommittees was excluded.
[20] Fleer appears to have included subcommittee membership in his averages, I excluded them because most subcommittees are for the Appropriations committee and I have treated all the arms of that committee as one unit.
[21] North Carolina General Assembly. House of Representatives 2003. House Resolution 2. (February 5, 2003).
[22] 1971 Session Laws and Resolutions, North Carolina, Chapter 638.
[23] Id.
[24] 1979 Session Laws and Resolutions, North Carolina, Chapter 655.
[25] 1991 North Carolina Session Laws and Resolutions, North Carolina, Chapter 694. The Open Meetings law is currently codified as Article 33C of Chapter 143 of the North Carolina General Statutes.
[26] A lengthy analysis by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press on the history of North Carolina's Open Meetings Law and compliance by the General Assembly can be found at: < >, accessed November 12, 2004
[27] 1973 North Carolina Session Laws and Resolutions, North Carolina, (May 17, 1973).
[28] E-mails from Wesley Taylor, Financial Services Section, Administrative Division, North Carolina General Assembly (October 1, 2004 and October 6, 2004).
[29] 1985 North Carolina Session Laws and Resolutions, North Carolina, Chapter 499. (June 28, 1985).
[30] 1987 North Carolina Session Laws and Resolutions, North Carolina, Chapter 1100. (July 12, 1988).
[31] North Carolina General Assembly, Legislative Services Commission. Minutes May 10, 1972.
[32] 1977 North Carolina Session Laws and Resolutions, North Carolina, Chapter 503 (June 8, 1977).
[33] 1979 North Carolina Session Laws and Resolutions, North Carolina, Chapter 1262 (June 25, 1980).
[34] E-mail from Dot Barber, administrative assistant for former Speaker Liston Ramsey, July 16, 2002.
[35] E-mail from Wesley Taylor, NCGA Financial Service Division 9/2/2004.
[36] E-mail from Wesley Taylor, NCGA Financial Service Division 9/2/2004.
[37] Minutes, Legislative Services Commission, May 10, 1972.
[38] Minutes, Legislative Services Commission, November 2, 1973.
[39] E-mail from Wesley Taylor, NCGA Financial Service Division, September 2, 2004.
[40] North Carolina Constitution, Article II, Section 19 (1970).
[41] North Carolina Constitution, Article II, Section 23 (1970).
[42] North Carolina Constitution, Article II, Section 22 (1970).
[43] 1973 North Carolina Session Laws and Resolutions, North Carolina, Chapter 488 (May 14, 1973)
[44] The database is currently available at "Vote History Reports", accessed October 12, 2004).
[45] E-mail from Joe Ferrell, Professor Public Law and Government, School of Government, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, July 9, 2002.
[46] Letter from George Hall, Legislative Services Officer, July 19, 2002.
[47] 1977 North Carolina Session Laws and Resolutions, North Carolina, Resolution 78, Senate Joint Resolution 879 (July 1, 1977).
[48] 1979 North Carolina Session Laws and Resolutions, North Carolina, Second Session 1980, Chapter 1250 (June 25, 1980), now codified as N.C.G.S. 120-114.
[49] All roll-call votes found in this analysis were found in the 1979 House and Senate bill books on file in the North Carolina Legislative Library.
[50] See for example, 2001 North Carolina Session Laws and Resolutions, North Carolina,, Resolution 2001-36 (December 6, 2001).
[51] North Carolina General Statutes 120-20.1 (1987, revised 2001).
[52] Stephenson v. Bartlett, 355 N.C. 354, 562 S.E.2d 377, 381-83 (April 20, 2002) Stephenson I).
[53] Stephenson v. Bartlett, 355 N.C. 354, 562 S.E.2d 377, 381-83 (April 30, 2002) (Stephenson I).
[54] North Carolina General Statutes 120-1, 120-2 (2003).
[55] 1975 North Carolina Session Laws and Resolutions, North Carolina, Chapter 564 (June 12, 1975).
[56] North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 120, Article 14 (2003).
[57] , accessed October 14, 2004.
[58] The Secretary of State's Advisory Council on Legislative Lobbying Policy and Regulation was established in 2004 to look at the issue of lobbying regulation, see "Lobbying Advisory Council" at accessed November 8, 2004.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
Related searches
- what is man according to the bible
- the world according to americans
- the world according to gawc 2020
- according to article ii of the constitution
- who is jesus according to the bible
- according to the lifespan perspective
- the gospel according to god
- the gospel according to satan
- who is god according to the bible
- according to the article apa
- according to the interactionist perspective
- according to the article mla